Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FORCED LABOUR.

Mr. W. BAKER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether forced labour, of the kind against which the Convention in regard to forced labour was directed, is resorted to in India; and, if so, whether he will give the particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Forced labour of the kind to which the Convention was directed appears to survive only in parts of the Madras Presidency and of Bihar and Orissa. It is not countenanced by the Courts, and in both Provinces progressive steps are being taken to eradicate it. The form it takes is that of labourers leasing themselves to landlords in return for loans of money.

SANDHURST COMMITTEE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Sandhurst Committee has yet been received by His Majesty's Government; whether it is the intention of the Government to refer the Report to the Imperial Defence Committee before its publication; if so, whether he will inform the House as to when the recommendations of the Committee will be made public; and when he will be in a position to make a statement of the Government's decision with regard to these recommendations?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has seen a copy of the Report, but has not yet received the Government of India's views on it. I cannot say at this stage what the procedure will be or when
the Government's decisions will be announced.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Sandhurst Committee, which was signed by them on 4th November last, will be published?

Earl WINTERTON: I fear I cannot at the moment add anything to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on the 14th February.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If I put the question down in a month's time, may I expect an answer then?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down in a month's time, and see.

NAVY BILL.

Mr. LANSBURY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Legislative Assembly in India has approved the proposals contained in the Government of India Indian Navy Bill now before this House?

Earl WINTERTON: The publication of the Committee's Report, on which the Bill is founded, gave members of the Assembly an opportunity to initiate a debate on the whole scheme if they desired, but, so far as I am aware, they have not availed themselves of it in tie 12 months that have since elapsed. As I stated on the 22nd February, 1926, the Assembly will in due course be required to consider consequential legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be worth while to postpone this Bill until the Legislative Assembly has assented to it?

Earl WINTERTON: No. As I explained in my answer, consequential legislation which will follow, on the passage of legislation in this House and another place, will have to be passed by the Assembly in India, and then will be the time to discuss the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does that mean that if the Assembly does not pass the consequential legislation, the Act passed here will be of no effect?

Earl WINTERTON: It means that consequential legislation has to he passed in India before the Act can come into operation.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does it mean then that if the Legislative Assembly does not do what this Government want it to do, the Viceroy will override the Legislative Assembly?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

COMMUNAL RIOTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India in how many cases during the administration of Lord Reading and his successor have processions of Hindus past Mohammedan mosques led to riots; whether the question of provocative action in these cases has been fully investigated; and what is the policy determined on to prevent the recurrence of these events?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no statistics to answer the first part of the question. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this particular cause of dispute has been investigated from every possible point of view. In answer to the third part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) on 11th November last.

TERRORISM, BENGAL.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement as to the continuance of terrorism in Bengal; whether it is entailing any special precautions on the part of the authorities; whether he will give the number of casualties in the recent communal riots in Bengal; and whether these disturbances are showing signs of increase?

Earl WINTERTON: I fear that no statement on the two quite distinct matters raised in the question could be brought within the usual limits of an answer. It is clear that terrorist activities continue in Bengal, and require constant vigilance; for example, a gang has recently been tried and convicted for the unlawful possession of bombs. As regards communal disturbances, which do not seem at present to be increasing, I cannot give complete figures, but the Hindu-Moslem riot in the Bakarganj district on the 2nd March resulted in 14 deaths and 8 cases of wounds.

Mr. THURTLE: Do I take it that the Noble Lord does not mean the House to understand that communal riots have anything at all to do with what is known as terrorism?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer was in exactly that sense, I think. I said it was difficult to discuss the two matters in one answer.

MR. SUBHAS BOSE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the chief medical officer of the Burmah Government and a medical colleague, with regard to Mr. Subhas Bose, that they do not regard conditions during confinement in gaol as conducive to restoration of his health; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not seen this report, but my Noble Friend will make inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INDIAN TROOPS.

Mr. DALTON: 3.
asked the, Under-Secretary of State for India the approximate cost, if any, of the sending of Indian troops to China, as far as the Indian revenues are concerned?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 21st February, and to that given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) last Thursday.

Mr. DALTON: May we understand that no action will be taken by the Government under Section 22 of the Government of India Act to impose any charge on Indian revenue?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the two replies I have quoted answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the opinion of the Indian Legislative Assembly was sought before Indian soldiers were sent to Shanghai; and, if so, with what result?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise.

BRITISH TRADE, YANGTSE-KIANG VALLEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent British trade being carried on in the Yangtse-kiang valley; whether British steamers are navigating the river freely; and how far up the river they are now regularly trading?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): During the last few months British trade in the Yangtse Valley has been very restricted by reason of civil war conditions and of the boycott that ensued on the arrival of the Cantonese Nationalist forces in that region. This applies particularly to the provinces of Hunan Hupeh and Kiangsi. British steamers are navigating the river freely and regularly as far as Hankow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that there is no trade above Hankow, and is there any trade above Ichang?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe that above Hankow there is very little trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether vessels of other nations are able to go up above Hankow?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No; I believe not.

CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY, HANGCHOW AND NINGPO.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with reference to the Church Missionary Society's hospital at Hangchow and its reported occupation on 24th February; and the position with regard to Ningpo Trinity College, also belonging to the Church Missionary Society and reported as occupied by Chinese soldiers?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the Church Missionary Society's hospital at Hangchow was raided by Cantonese troops on 25th February. The missionaries, however,
had already left on 23rd February. I have no information regarding Trinity College, Ningpo.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman taking any steps to have this property returned to the Church Missionary Society?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have not yet received any official information confirming this report.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the policy of the Foreign Office to try to get justice for our people? [Interruption.] Does not this show that it is useless to hold Shanghai if you cannot defend our people?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is very argumentative.

CUSTOMS DUTIES, SHANGHAI.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Customs duties are being collected at Shanghai; by whom they are being collected; and to what person or authority they are being paid over?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Customs duties at Shanghai are being collected by the Chinese Maritime Customs Administration, and, in accordance with the standing instructions of the Ministry of Finance, arc paid into certain foreign and Chinese banks, and applied to the service of China's foreign and domestic obligations.

Mr. TREVELYAN: To which Government are they paid?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Northern Government get the benefit.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has Sun Chuan-fang carried them off to Japan?

CHINESE TROOPS, SHANGHAI.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to refuse to allow the Cantonese troops to enter Shanghai if they offer to guarantee the safety of the foreign concessions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot attempt to answer hypothetical questions of this kind. I can only refer the right hon. Member to the replies given on 2nd March to a question by the bon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and to a
supplementary question by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Mr. MOSLEY: Have not other participants in the Chinese War been allowed to enter Shanghai, and will the Cantonese alone be debarred?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No armed forces have been allowed to enter the settlement.

Mr. MOSLEY: Was not General Sun permitted to occupy Shanghai?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, certainly not.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any instructions have been given to the military commanders based on the hypothesis in this question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The whole point of British forces being in Shanghai is to prevent the entry of these armed Chinese forces.

Mr. THURTLE: Have these commanders been given any instructions as to what to do in the event of this contingency arising?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the best thing we can do to trust our naval and military representatives on the spot?

Mr. DALTON: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any armed Chinese troops have entered or are at present within the lines occupied by the British troops at Shanghai; and, if so, whether it is proposed to disarm and intern them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No bodies of Chinese troops have entered or are within the lines occupied by British troops at Shanghai, apart possibly from isolated deserters or stragglers.

Mr. DALTON: Have any steps been taken to disarm or in tern the isolated deserters or stragglers?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes; any stragglers that happen to come within the International Settlement will certainly be disarmed.

Mr. MOSLEY: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Chang Tsung-chang has established his headquarters behind the lines
occupied by the British defence force; whether any troops of General Chang Tsung-chang are behind these lines; and, if so, how many?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is the report untrue that was published in the Press to the effect that this general had arrived at Shanghai with a train which also contained munitions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, there are no Chinese armed forces whatsoever within the International Settlement.

Mr. MOSLEY: Has this general not been in Shanghai since the arrival of our forces in Shanghai?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: He may have been in Shanghai, but the International Settlement is only a part of it.

Mr. MOSLEY: Then is it the policy of the Government to allow participants in the war to enter Shanghai, provided that they do not enter into the International Settlement?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Foreign Governments cannot possibly prevent anybody from entering the Chinese city.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the Under-Secretary explain whether there are Chinese troops within the British lines?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I can give a categorical answer to that question. Certainly not.

MM. CHEN KUEN AND LIAN HANSIN (VISAS).

Mr. BECKETT: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that his Department two weeks ago waived an application from two Chinese citizens, Chen Kuen and Lian Hansin, at present staying in Brussels, for permission to come to this country for the purpose of meeting and discussing the Chinese situation with certain British citizens, he will explain the reason for the delay in granting the visas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that these men ought not to be admitted to this country, and that visas should not be granted to them.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me any reason for that decision?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir; it is not necessary to give reasons; the discretion is in the hands of the Home Secretary.

Mr. BECKETT: Are we to understand that the Cantonese Government is regarded as an unfriendly Power; and, in view of the nature of that reply, may I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be open to the hon. Member to raise it on the Adjournment to-morrow.

INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT, SHANGHAI.

Mr. OLIVER: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what treaty the international settlement of Shanghai was established; what States are signatory to this treaty; and whether negotiations have been begun with the other signatories for the revision of the treaty?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Treaty of the Bogue, 1843, having stipulated that land should be set apart for the residence of British traders, an area for a British Settlement was marked out in that year by the local authorities at Shanghai. Similar areas were set aside for the French and the Americans, who enjoyed the same treaty right. The British Settlement was subsequently thrown open to all nationalities, amalgamated with the American Settlement and enlarged, and so became the International Settlement. The Land Regulations under which the International Settlement is administered can be amended or added to by agreement between the local Chinese authorities and the Consular Body at Shanghai subject to confirmation by their respective Governments. Negotiations are at present in progress for the addition of Chinese members to the Municipal Council.

Mr. OLIVER: May I ask whether negotiations have been begun with the other signatories for a revision of the treaty?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the first part of his reply, in view of the
statement of the Washington Government that it has no concessions and no treaties connected with territory in China?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was going to say that, as a matter of fact, this is not the case of a treaty at all. The International Settlement was not set up by Treaty, but by certain land regulations, which were subsequently recognised as valid by the Chinese officials.

MUNITIONS.

Mr. OLIVER: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a British subject, named Sutton, is in charge of the arsenal at Mukden which is supplying munitions to General Chang Tso-lin; whether any other British subjects are associated with Sutton in his enterprise; and whether he proposes to take any action against him and/or his associates under the China Order in Council?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My information on this subject is not complete, and I am awaiting a full report.

BRITISH NATIONALS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date advice was given by His Majesty's Government to British nationals in China, resident outside Shanghai, to repair to places of safety; and how many have taken his advice?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Advice to British nationals in the interior of China to withdraw to places of safety has been given from time to time since November last, whenever the districts in which they resided became so disturbed as to call for this precaution. I cannot give the actual figures, but I understand that this advice has been generally acted upon.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I ask whether all these nationals were not advised to repair to the Treaty ports before it was published that a defence force had left this country for Shanghai?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that advice was given shortly after November last.

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British commander of the
Shanghai defence force has any military authority over the foreign military detachments; and whether he or any military officer or officers are empowered to treat with the Cantonese forces?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The British military commander at Shanghai has been instructed to co-operate with the commanders of the troops of foreign Powers landed for the defence of the international settlement. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Do the Government intend to empower the local commander to treat with the Cantonese forces if they establish contact?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is the subject of a further question.

ADEN (POLITICAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement upon the taking over of the military and political control of Aden by the Imperial authorities from the Indian Government; what has been the saving in cost to the Indian Government; and what will be the extra cost to the Imperial Government?

Earl WINTERTON: The control of political affairs and of military operations in the Aden sphere was transferred from the Government of India to His Majesty's Government, as a, provisional measure, in 1917. It has now been agreed that for the future His Majesty's Government shall be entirely responsible for the political and military administration, the Government of India remaining responsible only for the internal administration of the settlement. From the 1st April, 1927, the Government of India will contribute a fixed sum of £250,000 a year for three years towards the military and political charges, and thenceforward one-third of these charges, subject to a maximum of £150,000 a year. The saving in cost to the Indian Government cannot be precisely stated at present. It will depend on the amount of the actual military and political expenditure from 1st April, 1927, onwards.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my Noble Friend say what is the extra cost to the Imperial Government?

Earl WINTERTON: I have given the figures, but I expect my hon. and gallant Friend did not fully apprehend the effect of my answer. I said the Government of India will contribute a fixed sum of £250,000 a year for three years, and thenceforward one-third of these charges, subject to a maximum of £150,000 a year.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will it mean an extra expenditure from our side?

Earl WINTERTON: It will mean that in future the Imperial Government will be responsible for what I have just stated.

Mr. HARRIS: What are the advantages of dual control here?

Earl W1NTERTON: It depends entirely on the circumstances. That is a general question, which I would prefer to answer in debate, but in this particular instance it is necessitated by the local circumstances.

COLONIAL TRANSPORT AND HARBOUR WORKS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of money that has been expended since the Armistice in obtaining the advice of technical experts, outside the Colonial service, in matters of transport and harbour works in the Crown Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): It is not possible to give the exact sum paid for such technical advice, supervision, inspection, etc., without very laborious investigation, but the total is something over £400,000, of which about £375,000 covers the payment to consulting engineers in respect of harbour and transport works.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Would that include the cost of passages?

Mr. AMERY: I could not say off-hand. In the main the amount consists of the ordinary scale fees of the consulting engineers for their part in the different works.

PALESTINE (MUNICIPAL COUNCILS FRANCHISE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why British subjects are not allowed to vote for or to sit on municipal councils in Palestine?

Mr. AMERY: When the Palestine Municipal Franchise Ordinance was being framed, it was decided, on grounds of general policy, to confine the privileges of voting in municipal elections and of sitting on municipal councils to Palestinian citizens; and it would not be desirable to make a special exception to this decision in favour of British subjects. The right hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware that Palestinian citizens are British protected persons.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me one solitary precedent in the British Empire for British subjects not being allowed to vote for municipal councils in that Empire?

Mr. AMERY: I think the position of Palestine as a mandated territory is rather peculiar, and it was felt desirable on general grounds to confine the municipal franchise to Palestinian citizens.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But why, seeing that in other parts of the British Empire people who reside in the country are allowed to vote, whether British subjects or not, should this extraordinary course be taken in Palestine?

Mr. AMERY: I am not sure that Palestine is in the full sense of the word in the British Empire, and I am not sure that I agree with the general contention of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are there not women in England under 30 years of age who are not allowed to vote?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why women are not allowed to vote for or to sit on municipal councils in Palestine?

Mr. AMERY: I am advised by the High Commissioner that it would for some time to come be repugnant to the wishes of the great majority of the population of Palestine to give the franchise to women throughout that country or to allow them to sit on municipal
councils. In some areas the objections to the franchise of women do not obtain, and they already have the right to vote in elections to the Tel-Aviv Local Council.
I understand also that the High Commissioner has at present under consideration a proposal to include in the law relating to municipal elections clauses which may be adopted by municipal councils which desire that women should be allowed to participate in the elections to those councils.

NIGERIA (TOWNSHIPS VALUATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Nigeria has taken any action under the Townships Ordinance of 1917 or the Assessment Ordinance of 1915, by which Ordinances he is given powers to direct in each town whether the valuation shall be of the capital value or annual value of the property, and whether the local tax or rate shall be based upon capital or annual value; if so, will he give the references to the gazettes; and, in particular, which system has been decided on for Lagos, for Zaria, and for Port Harcourt?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information as to which method has been adopted, though in Lagos, under the special Lagos Township Ordinance, the basis is the annual value. An Order applying the Assessment Ordinance to Lagos and to all townships in the northern provinces was made on the 2nd October, 1924, but the method was not specified therein.

RUBBER (MALAYA AND CEYLON).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will supply a Return showing the tonnage of rubber represented by unused rights and by unused coupons in Malaya and Ceylon, separately and respectively, for each month of the 12 months ending January, 1927?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures available as to unused export credits are as follow:


Malaya (excluding Trengganu and, for July, 1926, only, Kedah):



Tons.


End of July, 1926
23,099


End of August, 1926
76,935


End of September 1926
52,467


End of October, 1926
24,839


End of November, 1926
57,776


End of December, 1926
38,741


End of January, 1927
18,707

Ceylon:

Middle of January, 1927 about 15,000

If these figures be insufficient for my hon. Friend's purpose, I will ask the Governor and High Commissioner for fuller particulars.

CEYLON (RAILWAY GUARD'S DISMISSAL).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a memorial from Ceylon praying for the reinstatement of Patrick Weber, a guard on the Ceylon Government Railway; and whether, in view of the fact that, subsequent to Weber's dismissal, two of the principal witnesses against him have been arrested, fined, and dismissed the service for theft, he will have the fullest investigation made into this case before coming to a decision?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information in this matter, but if such a memorial is forwarded to me through the Governor in accordance with the Regulations it will receive consideration.

KENYA-TANGANYIKA BOUNDARY.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the continuous trouble along the undemarcated Kenya-Tanganyika boundary; and if any steps are being taken to demarcate this boundary?

Mr. AMERY: In order to obviate difficulties, provision, is being made to erect the further beacons necessary to define the frontier.

ZANZIBAR (SHEIK ISA BIN SALEH).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision in the matter of the estates of the late Sheikh Saleh bin Ahmed, which were confiscated after the rebellion in Zanzibar of 1896, so that such portion at least may be returned to his son, Sheikh Isa bin Saleh, which may suffice for his maintenance?

Mr. AMERY: The matter has been carefully looked into, but I regret that the decision cannot be reconsidered.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some mercy might be shown in this case, and is it desirable that the punishment of the father should be carried on to the son?

Mr. AMERY: The punishment of the father in the case of loss of property does inevitably affect descendants. The matter has been very carefully looked into, but it would raise very difficult precedents to exercise a special and individual clemency in this case.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is not some of the confiscated property still in the hands of the Government, and could not a portion of it be returned to the son?

WIFE DESERTION (DOMINION SOLDIERS).

Mr. SNELL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that many British-born women who married soldiers from the Dominions during the War have been deserted by their husbands and, with their children, are dependent upon relatives or the public funds; that no machinery exists whereby these absconding husbands can be traced and compelled to maintain their families; and that the High Commissioners of the Dominions are unable to assist such deserted wives to find their husbands; and will he consider whether any arrangement can be made with the Dominion Governments whereby the grievances of these women and children can be redressed?

Lieut.-Colonel A. McDONNELL: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make repre-
sentations to the Dominion Governments in connection with the enforcement of orders for maintenance against husbands resident in the Dominions who have deserted their wives and families in England?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the general question of the enforcement of maintenance orders made in this country against persons resident in the Dominions, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 24th February. I should, perhaps, add that I understand that the various Dominion Authorities both in this country and overseas have accorded their assistance, and have been successful in a great number of cases in tracing husbands who have deserted their wives in this country, and gone to the Dominions.

Mr. SNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these unfortunate women are quite unable to take any personal part in tracing their husbands?

Mr. AMERY: I know, but under the Measure that has been passed a considerable measure of assistance has been effected, and the Dominion authorities here and overseas have done their best to help in these cases.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the total amount contributed up to date by the Imperial Government under the emigration agreement, of 8th April, 1925, between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia; and which of the Australian States have concluded agreements with the Commonwealth Government under that scheme?

Mr. AMERY: The total amount contributed to date by His Majesty's Government under the loan agreement with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia dated 8th April, 1925, is £262,655 7s. 4d. All the States of the Commonwealth with the exception of New South Wales have concluded an agreement with the Commonwealth Government under the loan agreement.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether be is yet in a position to make any announcement with regard to the proposed mission to Australia to examine the means of increasing the capacity of the Commonwealth to absorb immigrants and of encouraging the influx of capital; and whether any decision has yet been made in regard to the terms of reference of the Commission, its personnel, and the length of stay in Australia of its members?

Mr. AMERY: I am not in a position to make any statement at present, but as soon as matters are sufficiently advanced, it is contemplated that a statement should be made simultaneously here and in Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Colonel DAY: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total number of visitors who have visited the British Industries Fair at the White City, and also at Birmingham, to the last convenient date?

Mr. LUNN: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many overseas representatives were reported to have visited the British Industries Fair in London and Birmingham this year; and whether or not satisfactory reports have come to the Department of orders received by exhibitors for the supply of British goods?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The actual number of buyers who visited the London section of the Fair was 74,462, of whom 1,581 came from overseas. This latter figure takes no account of a considerable number of United Kingdom agents of overseas firms who were buying on foreign account. These figures show an increase of over 25 per cent. on the corresponding figures for last year.
As regards the Birmingham section, I am in correspondence with the authorities, and will communicate further with the hon. Members.
In addition, the general public visited the Fair to the number of about 25,000 in London and 10,000 in Birmingham. No official figures are available as to the business done, but I am happy to be able to report that the exhibitors in all sec-
tions of the Fair have expressed themselves as more than satisfied with the actual and anticipated results.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Birmingham figures are in excess of the figures of last year?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I cannot say that.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the cost in advertising is about 4s. for each visitor; and has there been any other exhibition held in this country so costly in relation to attendance?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I must ask for notice of that question.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Has any exhibition in this country ever brought in so much money for British merchants?

FOREIGN RAILS, SOUTH AFRICA.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that £200,000 worth of rails supplied to the South African railways by Foreign firms have been condemned as useless; whether any British firms tendered for the supply of these rails; and whether he will make further inquiries in the matter?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I understand that certain rails imported into South Africa from Europe have been found to be defective, and that the circumstances connected with them are under investigation by the Government of the Union of South Africa. I am unable to say whether these rails were supplied as a result of public tenders. I have already asked His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for a report on the subject.

Mr. REMER: Is there any truth in the statement that the Government marks on these rails were forged?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have not heard that.

INSURANCE COMPANIES, SPAIN.

Mr. BENNETT: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the nature of the changes proposed by the Spanish Government, on the advice of the Supreme Insurance Council, affecting the capital of insurance companies and the effect of these changes on British insurance companies operating in Spain?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have no information on the subject, but am making inquiries, and will communicate further with my hon. Friend in due Course.

IMPORT LICENCES, POLAND.

Mr. BENNETT: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing difficulties which British manufacturers are experiencing in obtaining import licences for the entry of their goods into Poland; and whether any official British representations are being made on the subject?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 21st February to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), a copy of which I am sending him.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES REGULATION ACT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. BUXTON: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions that have been instituted under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act; the amount of fines imposed; and the arrears of wages recovered?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The number of prosecutions which have been instituted under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, up to the present date is 142, as a result of which fines amounting to £504 have been inflicted and £2,481 in arrears of wages have been awarded to the workers concerned.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the Minister contemplate appointing further inspectors, in view of the fact that in many districts wages below the legal rate have been found to prevail?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have quite recently appointed an extra five inspectors, and I do not think we can yet judge how far that will meet the requirements.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the majority of these eases which have been dealt with, they have been dealt with as the remit of reports which have been sent on to his Department by various trade unions?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is often the case, and it is a very satisfactory way of getting information; but, in addition to that, we are now in a position to carry out the necessary test inspections.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many large areas where the trade union movement has not penetrated, and it is in those areas that these cases arise?

TITHE.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that the Government repeatedly stated on the passage of the Tithe Act, 1925, that the clergy were to receive £100 free of rates and that where tithe is held jointly by an incumbent and a lay tithe-owner, or where tithe is held jointly by two incumbents, the tithe is still liable to full rates, he will undertake to introduce legislation to correct this liability for rates and so restore to all incumbents the promised £100 free of rateable liability?

Mr. GUINNESS: In order to qualify for the relief from rates granted by the Tithe Act, 1925, in respect of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice, all that was necessary in the cases to which the hon, and learned Member refers was for the incumbents concerned to arrange with the assistance of Queen Anne's Bounty, for a legal division of the tithe rent-charge to be made prior to the day appointed for the governing provisions of the Act to come into force. The Act was passed in December, 1925, while the appointed day referred to is the 31st March, 1927, and considerable time was, therefore, available for the legal divisions to which I have alluded. I understand that a large number have already been made, and that more will he completed before the appointed day. I cannot, therefore, undertake to introduce any new legislation dealing with the matter.

Sir H. SLESSER: Is there any means at present to compel such a division as the right hon. Gentleman suggests?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think there can be any difficulty in getting a division. It is only a matter of applying. Then, in the ordinary course, the Ministry will make an apportionment.

LAND DRAINAGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any announcement with regard to the introduction this Session of legislation for the amendment of the law of land drainage in England and Wales?

Mr. GUINNESS: A Bill will be introduced shortly to deal with the special case of the area drained by the River Ouse, which was investigated and reported on last year by a special Commission. With regard, however, to any general amendment of the law of land drainage, the Government have come to the conclusion that the whole question should be examined by a Royal Commission before fresh legislation of a general character is introduced. I hope to announce the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission very shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference will include investigation of sea defences and coast erosion?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; it is merely a matter of land drainage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the terms of reference include the possibility of charging people who benefit from the land drainage for the cost of the land drainage?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly; the whole object of the inquiry is to see whether the burden is now fairly borne.

BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any fresh stipulations have been laid down in the agreements with the beet-sugar companies in receipt of subsidy as to the housing and other conditions of labour?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir. In the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, there is no stipulation in regard to housing. Section 3 of the Act, however, deals with fair wages to be paid by employers in receipt of subsidy and provides for reference to the Industrial Court in case of disputes arising as to wages which ought to be paid.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 44.
also asked the Minister of Agriculture how many sugar-beet companies are in receipt of subsidy; whether the shares were issued to the public; and if he can give an estimate as to the amount of foreign capital invested in such subsidised companies?

Mr. GUINNESS: Fourteen factories received subsidy during the 1926–27 season. In the case of seven factories shares were issued or are available to the public. The amount of foreign share capital invested in these 14 factories is believed to be approximately £1,280,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman name the countries?

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

DISINFECTANTS (TESTS).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether,, seeing that the test for disinfectants which has now been adopted is considered unsuitable and unreliable by the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry and other large purchasers of disinfectants, he will consider the adoption of a more reliable test?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware that the test for disinfectants which the Ministry has adopted for use under the Diseases of Animals Acts is in any sense unreliable. It was adopted after full consideration and scientific advice as being a test conducted under conditions which resemble as closely as possible the actual conditions under which the disinfectants prescribed by the Ministry are used in practice.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask whether that has been agreed to by other Government offices which are equally concerned in getting a reliable test?

Mr. GUINNESS: The requirements of the other offices are very different from the requirements of agriculture. Other offices do not have to deal with the testing of disinfectants for field purposes.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not possible to get the matter reconsidered from the point of view of science, as some equally high authorities are against this change, which is a radical change?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have prescribed this test on the advice of the Government chemist.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that brands of disinfectants, which have been approved by the Ministry, are being freely sold to agriculturists in inferior strengths and not labelled in accordance with the Diseases of Animals Disinfection Order, 1926,, so that the public are unaware of the proper strength at which to use such agents, and the intention of the Statute is plainly defeated; and if he will give the number of samples of disinfectants tested for his Department which have been taken from supplies purchased in the open market, and the numbers of manufacturers against whom proceedings have been taken for non-compliance with the Order?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Agriculturists and others required to use approved disinfectants under any Order issued in pursuance of the Diseases of Animals Acts should be careful to see that the preparation they are obtaining for that purpose is labelled clearly as prescribed in the Disinfection Order of 1926. The enforcement of the Orders requiring the use of disinfectants rests with the local authorities. I have no information as to the number of samples of disinfectants taken by those bodies nor as to the number of prosecutions instituted. No prosecutions have been undertaken by the Ministry.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the possibility of his officers taking samples in the open market, instead of relying on samples which are sent to him, manifestly cooked up for the purpose?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the ordinary way I think the local authorities are quite able to take samples from the open market. The hon. and gallant Member will sec that it would lead to unnecessary expense and the duplicating of samples.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: But is not the Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member makes me a little nervous about his Supplementary Questions when he puts allegations into them. I think he had better hand them to me in writing.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: This is not an allegation. The Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: I heard something about sending cooked samples, and to the ordinary man that sounds very much like an allegation.

SHOWROOM AND OFFICE SIGNS, REGENT STREET.

Mr. RYE: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the general practice of the Commissioners of Crown lands to refuse consent, as in certain recent cases, for the erection of signs indicating the position of showrooms and offices in the upper parts of premises in Regent Street?

Mr. GUINNESS: The practice of the Commissioners of Crown Lands is not to allow signs indicating the position of the showrooms and offices in the upper parts to be exhibited on the face of the stonework in Regent Street; but such signs are required to be on the return faces of the stone piers inside the entrances. This is considered to be quite adequate, while avoiding disfigurement of the architecture of the elevations.

Mr. RYE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great difficulty in letting the upper parts of premises in Regent Street, and is this refusal to give consent of any assistance to the tenants in the upper parts?

Mr. GUINNESS: We give reasonable facilities for signs in the windows, but I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to the tables of occupiers on the ground floors.

Mr. RYE: The point I wished to raise was that it is very difficult in some of these cases to identify the upper part of those premises, as the entrance to such upper part is behind the shop front, and the Commissioners have refused to give consent for signs to be hung to identify those entrances.

Mr. GUINNESS: We have given facilities for the upper floors which, I should have thought, dealt with the particular grievance.

DOGS (IMPORTATION).

Colonel DAY: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many dogs have been imported in accordance with the Ministry
of Agriculture's Regulations during the six months ended to the last convenient date; and if any cases of rabies have been discovered during the time these animals were in quarantine?

Mr. GUINNESS: Three hundred and eighty-eight dogs have been imported from abroad under licences issued by the Ministry during the six months ended 28th February last. One case of rabies was discovered among these dogs in a dog brought from India.

Colonel DAY: May I ask whether the other dogs that were on the boat are being kept under strict observation?

Mr. GUINNESS: They are always kept six months in quarantine.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the destination of the 4,214 horses exported during the six months ended 31st January, 1927; and particularly the 1,600 of that number which were intended for immediate slaughter?

Mr. GUINNESS: The destination of these horses is as follows:—


Belgium
438


Holland
2,368


France
1,234


Other countries
174


As far as can be ascertained, 1,600 horses went to Holland for immediate slaughter, five went to Belgium for that purpose, and none went to other countries.

Colonel APPLIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has now come to put an end to this inhuman traffic in horses?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think there is any inhuman traffic. In the first place, a horse which is to be allowed out of the country has to be able to work and to travel without any cruelty, and no horses are going to France or Belgium—or only five went in the six months, to Belgium—for slaughter. They are only going to these countries to work.

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman persuade all the old ladies in London to believe that?

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has made that every horse to be exported must be fit for work, how does he explain the figure he has given of 1,600 horses exported for slaughter?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is nothing to prevent people on the Continent slaughtering horses for human consumption which are fit for work, and, as a matter of fact, there is a very large demand in Holland for horses of this character for human consumption. In the case of that country no allegation whatever has been made against the humane methods of slaughter, which are quite equal to those in this country.

WOMEN (NATIONALITY LAW).

Mr. BRIANT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if lie will consider the introduction of a Bill to facilitate the British-born wives of aliens resuming their British nationality in the event of the decease or desertion of their husbands?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked o reply to this question. In the case of a woman who was a British subject before her marriage to an alien, and whose husband has died, or whose marriage has been dissolved fresh legislation is unnecessary. Special facilities for the resumption of British nationality are already available under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has previously announced the intention of the Government to propose the provision of somewhat similar facilities in the case of a woman who is or may be presumed to be permanently separated from her alien husband, and a recommendation to this effect was adopted by the recent Imperial Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

HOURS AT GREAT DEPTHS.

Mr. HARDIE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board's Report, which shows that an increasing demand is made upon the energy of the miner as greater depths are reached, he will take these facts into consideration for rearranging hours of labour?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member is aware, this complex question is being studied not only by the investigators who have issued the Report referred to, but also, from a different point of view, by the Committee on Temperature in deep and hot Mines. The work of the latter Committee must proceed further before it is possible to come to any definite conclusion.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask if there is any doubt in the mind of anyone who knows anything about the subject as to the truth of the statement I make in the question, as to the difference which temperature makes to a man's health?

Sir B. CHADWICK: That is admitted in the report of the Industrial Fatigue Board. I say there is another Committee, a Committee on temperature, which is also examining that subject, and we are waiting till that Committee reports.

Mr. HARDIE: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing further to wait for, because this Committee that I refer to has definitely proved the conditions I mentioned in my question, and I am asking the Prime Minister whether, in view of that, he is going to rearrange the hours according to the temperatures?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Member based his question of a possible rearrangement of hours on temperature. A Committee on temperature is examining the question of the increased demand on energy owing to temperature, and may find that it can reduce the temperature.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he or the Prime Minister has any knowledge of the fact that increase in temperature is determined by the depth, and that nothing known artificially in the way of air pumping will reduce that?

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of coal was imported into this country during the month of February, and the cost of the same; and the quantity of coal exported during the same period, with the cost?

Sir B. CHADWICK: 338,238 tons of coal were imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during February, and the declared value c.i.f. was £925,038; 4,172,856 tons were exported during the same period, and the declared value f.o.b. was £3,982,682.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the importation of foreign coal is now decreasing, since British coal can be purchased at less than £1 per ton, while we are paying more than £3 a ton for imported coal?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The imports to which I refer are merely working-off contracts entered into during the stoppage.

MR. CHURCHILL'S BOOK.

Mr. AMMON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will extend the prohibition against Ministers of the Crown writing for the Press to cover books and newspaper articles dealing with contemporary history and calling into question the conduct of distinguished naval officers and other servants of the Crown who are precluded from defending themselves in public by speech or publication?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): So far as the period of the Great War is concerned, it would hardly be reasonable to institute any such prohibition. A whole library has been published upon this extensive subject, to which many of the principal actors—naval, military and political—have already contributed their own versions of what occurred.

Mr. AMMON: May we take it then that the verdict delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the strategy of a certain Admiral is to be taken as the considered judgment of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman, if he has read the preface to the book, will no doubt realise that the bulk of the book was written, and the materials collected, at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of office, and seemed very unlikely ever to obtain office again. There was a question whether the work should be finished or not, and I considered it right that the work should be
finished. The question of historian's bias, if bias there be, can easily be corrected by others; and it is a matter of common knowledge that if there be a certain amount of bias in a history it is far better reading, and that it can always be corrected by allowing for the personal equation.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in respect to his first answer, whether he has in mind any intention of extending the prohibition to post-War subjects?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite understand the question. The prohibition is perfectly clear; it is a prohibition against writing articles in the Press. I answered a question about it fully the other day.

Mr. AMMON: Is there not an important difference in a high officer in an important position in the Government commenting on the action of Admirals who are in the Service, and will those Admirals be allowed to reply in the public Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is a free country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the Prime Minister convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gratitude which a great number of us feel to him for so openly criticising the bungles of 1616?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for discussing literature.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

DISARMAMENT (PREPARATORY COMMISSION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any communication from the United States which suggests an alteration of the procedure under which the forthcoming meeting of the preparatory Commission was to have been made a plenary body to conclude an agreement for naval disarmament?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. PONSONBY: 65 and 66.
asked (1) the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether, in view of the evils which it is admitted in the covenant of the League of Nations are involved in the private manufacture of arms and ammunition, His Majesty's Government are prepared to lay before the League proposals for its total abolition;
(2) what proposals His Majesty's Government has laid before the Committee of the League of Nations for the execution of their obligation contained in Article 8 of the Covenant to remove the evils attendant upon the private manufacture of arms and ammunition; and whether these proposals can be laid before the House for their information?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A committee of the League have prepared a draft convention on the private manufacture of arms which has been submitted for consideration to the Government's members of the League. This draft convention will be examined by a subcommittee appointed by the Council at its last session, which will meet on 14th March.
Any recommendations reached by the sub-committee will receive the careful consideration of His. Majesty's Government, but it would be premature on their part to make specific proposals before an examination of the sub-committee's deliberations has taken place.

SAAR VALLEY COMMISSION.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the names and nationality of the present members of the League Commission of the Saar Valley?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The names and nationality of the present members of the Saar Governing Commission are as follow:

Mr. Stephens, Canadian.
M. Morize, French.
M. Lambert, Belgian.
M. Kossmann, Saar.
M. Vezensky, Czechoslovak.
Mr. Stephens, who is Chairman of the Commission, has expressed the wish to retire.

Mr. R. SMITH: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many French troops there are in the Saar
Valley and how many there were a year ago?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am unable to give exact figures, but a year ago I understand that the French garrison in the Saar consisted of one regiment of infantry, one regiment of cavalry and a battalion of chasseurs. Since then the battalion of chasseurs has been withdrawn.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the steady complaints in regard to French troops in the Saar, may we take it that the Foreign Secretary has given an instruction to his chief at Geneva that this representative shall be changed, and may I ask whether we can have there an international authority or something much more adequately—

Mr. SPEAKER: A question like that should be put on the Paper.

Mr. R. SMITH: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the reason for the resignation of Major Stephens from the presidency of the Saar Commission of the League of Nations?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that Mr. Stephens is retiring for reasons of health.

NICARAGUA (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "COLOMBO.")

Mr. BECKETT: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the despatch of the British cruiser "Colombo" to the shores of Nicaragua has been effected with his concurrence; and what communication, if any, passed between him and the Government of Nicaragua prior to such despatch?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires received instructions to notify the Nicaraguan Government in the ordinary manner of the projected arrival of His Majesty's Ship in Nicaraguan waters.

RUSSIA (DETENTION OF BRITISH SEAMAN).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that David
Scott, after being detained six months in prison without trial, sent a letter to the Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow; can he say whether this letter ever reached the hands of our Charge d'Affaires; if so, what reply was sent; is he aware that after being incarcerated for eight months Scott was liberated and deported; and can he say what steps, if any, our Chargé d'Affaires took to have David Scott brought up for trial?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am aware that Mr. Scott, after he had been in prison for some time, addressed a, letter to His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires, but I cannot say exactly when it was written. It was received by Sir Robert Hodgson in October. I do not know whether Sir Robert replied to Mr. Scott, but he at once brought the case to the attention of the Soviet Government, and Mr. Scott was released and deported shortly afterwards. Sir Robert, on the 3rd November, also lodged a protest with the Soviet Government against Mr. Scott's prolonged detention without trial. According to Mr. Scott's own statement, he had been arrested on 11th December, 1925.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. Friend say what reply has been received from the Soviet authorities with regard to that protest by our representative in Moscow?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The unfortunate thing is that there is nothing under Soviet law at present to prevent indefinite detention before trial.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What compensation has been asked for Mr. Scott?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it is possible, the law being what it is, to ask for compensation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many people have been lodged in gaol in Bengal for two years without trial?

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS TO FABRIC).

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what repairs he proposes to carry out to the fabric of the
Houses of Parliament during the ensuing year; how far they will be of a temporary character; and when he will be in a position to put before the House a complete scheme for the preservation of the building or its re-facing by new stone?

Captain HACKING: (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I would refer the hon. Member to the Memorandum on the Defective Stonework, which was published in November last as a Command Paper. It is hoped that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposals contained in that Memorandum when the Vote for Houses of Parliament Buildings is taken in Committee of Supply. The repairs will be of a permanent character, and, as soon as Parliamentary sanction has been obtained, it is proposed to commence work on the Terrace Front and the Central Tower.

BRITISH EMBASSY BUILDING, WASHINGTON.

Mr. VIANT: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in any contract for the erection of the new Embassy building in Washington, steps will be taken to ensure that the firm getting the contract is one of good repute within the meaning of the fair wages clause?

Captain HACKING: Steps are being taken to ensure that, in any contract fur the erection of the new Embassy building at Washington, the contractor shall pay the rate of wages generally accepted in each trade for competent workmen in the district. Provision will be made accordingly in the contract documents, which will include a schedule of the rates ruling when the contract is let and make provision for adjustment.

LONDON PARKS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any special efforts are being made this year in the way of additional flora and fauna for the beautification of the London parks?

Captain HACKING: The Office of Works is making arrangements for displays on the same lines as in previous years. In addition, there will be a special display of tulips, due to the generosity of the Dutch Bulb Growers' Association.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Following the precedent of previous years, have any interesting exchanges of flowers been made?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir; no exchanges have been made.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (POTTERY TRADE).

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the committee set up to hear the application from the pottery trade for the imposition of an import duty on certain forms of foreign pottery has yet reported; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir, this committee has not yet reported.

INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS.

Mr. PONSONBY: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are to be represented at the conference of the Pacific Institute, which is to meet at Honolulu this summer?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Institute of Pacific Relations is an unofficial concern and has not invited foreign governments to its conferences. His Majesty's Government therefore will not be represented, but I am informed that there may be British representatives.

Mr. PONSONBY: Will the Dominion of Australia be represented?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Oh, yes.

CANARY ISLANDS (FOREIGN WHEAT).

Mr. ROY WILSON: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent action of the Spanish Government
in prohibiting the importation of foreign wheat and flour into the Canary Islands; if he is aware that their action is a serious matter for English merchants and flour millers who, for over 25 years, have been regular shippers to the Canary Islands; and if, in view of the large amount of fruit and wine imported into this country from Spain, he will endeavour to persuade the Spanish Government to reconsider its decision?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The matter has been under consideration since last December, and as a result of representations made on the instructions of my right hon. Friend by His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, certain concessions have been obtained for the shippers. The action of the Spanish Government is, however, part of a general policy, and I fear that there is no possibility of securing the cancellation of the prohibition for the present. It seems possible, however, that the prohibition may not be maintained for very long.

TRAWLER "QUERCIA."

Captain GARRO-JONES: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made any complaint to the Norwegian Government about the treatment to which a British trawler has been subjected by Norwegian patrol boats on the high seas; and whether he has received any explanation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the case of the trawler "Quercia." I have just received a report on the case, and am considering what action should be taken thereon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 91.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the forthcoming Naval Estimates he can see his way to ask for a grant of children's allowances as was the case from January, 1918, to December, 1919?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The answer is in the negative.

SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 92.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now see his way to seek some modifications of that part of the Superannuation Acts which provides that an employé, in order to obtain a pension, must be discharged on account of age, infirmity, or abolition of office, so that those who may desire to obtain other employment or go abroad may receive their accrued pensions, and thus mitigate the present unemployment in dockyard towns and make it possible for more men to obtain work?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Superannuation Acts apply to the Civil Service as a whole, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any amendment in the direction suggested.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the-very serious situation which now arises owing to the coming discharges, cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to recommend this course, especially as it would mean that Admiralty employés would be treated with greater humanity, and that common sense will prevail?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the question which is on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONES (RENTAL CHARGES).

Mr. LAMB: 84 and 85.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) what are the rental charges for telephones in rural areas in Great Britain and in any British Dominions and foreign countries for which the information is available;
(2) the number of telephones in use per 1,000 of the population in Great Britain and in any British Dominions and foreign countries for which the information is available?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): As the replies to these questions involve a number of detailed figures, I propose to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

UNITED STATES (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the furthest westward centre in either the
United States or Canada with which telephonic communication has been, successfully carried out from Great Britain?

Viscount WOLMER: San Francisco.

DISTRICT AUDITORS, WALES.

Mr. MORRIS: 87.
asked the Minister of Health the number of district auditors appointed for Wales; and how many of them have a knowledge of the Welsh language?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Four district auditors are engaged in auditing the accounts of local authorities in Wales. One of these and, in addition, one of the senior assistant auditors, has a knowledge of the Welsh language.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES, WALES.

Mr. MORRIS: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether to gal authorities in Wales, if desirous of doing so, are authorised to record their minutes, including those relating to finance, in the Welsh language?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is advised that it was held by the Local Government Board that the proceedings of Welsh local authorities generally might be carried on in either Welsh or English, the minutes being in the language actually used, with the exception of accounts and minutes as to accounts, which it was thought would more conveniently be kept in English.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 93.
asked the President of the Board of Education what are the exceptional circumstances referred to in paragraph 6 of Circular 1388 that would justify expenditure on new special schools or the enlargement of existing ones; whether he has in mind the absence of facilities for the training of blind, crippled, or mentally defective children; and whether he can define more closely what circumstances he would consider so exceptional as to justify such expenditure?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): If the hon. Member will look at paragraph 6 of the Circular he will see that the reference to exceptional circumstances relates only to special schools for mentally defective children. I do not want to pre- judge applications which I may receive from local authorities by any attempt to limit in advance the interpretation of the word "exceptional."

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Mr. HARRIS: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Education what he considers is required to provide a local education authority with a complete medical service; haw often a child should be inspected during the elementary school period and what ailments should be included in the treatment scheme; and what is the standard aimed at by paragraph 6 of Circular 1388 when it is laid down by the Board that the first aim of national policy should be the completion of the school medical service?

Lord E. PERCY: A complete school medical service for children in public elementary schools should provide for medical inspection, for following up cases of defect found in the course of inspection, and for medical treatment of defects. Local authorities are required to provide for the inspection of all children on admission to school, on attaining the age of eight, and on attaining the age of 12; provision should also be made for the inspection of special cases and the re-examination of children previously inspected. With regard to the last part of the question, it is not easy to define a rigid standard for a service comprising so many activities, but the hon. Member will find a discussion of the problems involved in Chapter V of the Annual Report of the Board's Chief Medical Officer for the year 1924.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

BOUNTY (ABOLITION).

Sir BASIL PETO: 95.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of saving expected to be effected by the withdrawal of the grant of bounties for men recruited to the Territorial Forces
after the 28th February; and what is the expected diminution in the numbers of Territorial Forces which will result?

Captain BOURNE: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he consulted any of the Territorial Force associations before deciding to abolish the bounties hitherto payable to efficient soldiers of the Territorial Army; and whether he has received any representations from Territorial Force associations on this subject?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I caused the Vice-Chairman of the Council of Territorial Associations to be consulted by members of the Army Council in July, 1926, and in February last he was informed of the proposal to abolish the bounty, and asked to ascertain the views of the Council. The Council appointed a Committee to examine the proposal and to make alternative suggestions. The Committee made a report, and on 21st February I saw a deputation from the Council and discussed the Committee's suggestions. The saving expected is £64,000 next year, rising to £332,000 in a year when the abolition has taken full effect. I cannot say what, if any, diminution of numbers will result, but I hope that any diminution will be temporary only.

LONDON UNITS (REHOUSING).

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the controversy between his Department and the Territorial Association for London, relating to the rehousing of certain units, has been settled; and, if so, whether he can give the House the substance of any new arrangements?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The question of rehousing certain London units of the Territorial Army is at present under discussion with the Territorial Association, but no decision has yet been reached.

FATAL ACCIDENT, DEPTFORD.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 99.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Home Office experts, who investigated into the cause and circumstances of the accident by which five workmen were killed and others injured while working under com-
pressed air in a tunnel being constructed for the London Electric Supply Corporation at Deptford, on 7th January last, is to be published; and will it be circulated to Members?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to publish this Report when received. It will appear as a Stationery Office publication, and any Member interested will, I understand, be able to obtain a copy on application through the Vote Office. I will see that the hon. and gallant Member is supplied with a copy as soon as it has been issued.

SHOP PREMISES.

Mr. RYE: 100.
asked the Home Secretary whether there is any official record of the number of shop premises in England and Wales; and, if so, the number of such premises?

Captain HACKING: According to the census taken in 1921, there were then in England and Wales approximately 614,579 shops, of which 463,751 were in buildings containing dwellings. These figures are given on page 82 of the "General Tables" published in 1925. I have no later figures.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS (REGISTRATTON).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 101.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has under consideration the question of the schools supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions which are not at present subject, to registration or inspection; and whether he contemplates taking any action in the matter?

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that this matter was dealt with in the final Report of the Committee on Child Adoption, which was published last July. Their recommendations involve legislation. My right hon. Friend proposes to consider the question of amending the Children Act in this and other directions when he has received the Report of the Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided Ayes, 215; Noes, 86.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Frece, Sir Walter de


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gates, Percy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, Sir S.
Goff, Sir Park


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grace, John


Belfairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clayton, G. C.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Berry, Sir George
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w,E.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cope, Major William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Crookshank, Col, C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Llndsey,Galnsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harland, A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.


Buckingham, Sir H
Everard, W. Lindsay
Herbert,S. (York M. R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Burman, J. B.
Fielden, E. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Spender-Clay, Colone[...] H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hopkins, J. W. W
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oakley, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Jacob, A. E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tinne, J. A.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, G. W. H. (Stroke Newington)
Penny, Frederick George
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G, (Somerset, Frome)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lamb, J. O.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Retd, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remer, J. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Loder, J. de V.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McLean, Major A.
Rye, F. G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Wolmer, Viscount


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Malone, Major P. B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D.Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meller, R. J.
Smith,R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T,
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Mosley, Oswald



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to extend the operation of the enactments relating to the protection of animals in respect of animals kept in captivity or confined, and released for
the purpose of being hunted or coursed," presented by Sir WILFRID SUGDEN; supported by Mr. Barr, Mr. Boothby, Mr Fenby, Sir George Hume, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. MacKenzie
Livingstone, Sir Frank Sanderson, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Herbert Williams, and Mr. Thomas Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1927.

Six L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS' STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The House will notice that in the Memorandum which accompanies the Estimates this year, a great deal of matter which is normally dealt with in an Estimates speech has been included. I thought it would be more convenient for hon. Members to have the information before they were called upon to debate the Estimates. This course also enables me to shorten the speech which I have to make.
Although Vote A asks for a larger number of men than last year, the fact is that these Estimates provide for a reduction of about 4,000 in the Regular Army. The reduction includes 47 officers and 1,294 other ranks, due to reorganisation of the Cavalry, and 18 officers and 861 men in the Royal Artillery, chiefly due to reorganisations which I have set out in detail in the Memorandum. Then there are certain minor trimmings of the establishments of the Corps of Signals and other units. The disbandment of the West Indian Regiment accounts for 23 officers and 670 other ranks. Although the actual figures of Vote A show an increase of 7,100 men on the current year, or 8,700 if there is added a reduction of 1,600 of the Indian troops in Iraq, the actual fact is that there is a reduction of 4,000. The despatch of the Shanghai Defence Force, in which is included a mixed brigade from India, accounts for the bulk of the apparent increase, as these troops are transferred from the Indian Establishment to Vote A. As I shall explain later, the garrison at Men, which last year was not included in Vote A, as it was provided by India, has now been transferred to the Imperial Government, and consequently has to be provided for in the Vote. Instead, therefore, of there being an increase there is an actual decrease of about 4,000 in the Regular Army.
The total net cash for which I am asking is £41,565,000. This is £935,000 less than last year. Of course, these figures do not include any extra expenditure on the Shanghai Defence Force, because this is not capable of being made the subject of an Estimate at the present moment.
4.0.p.m.
I have set out in the Memorandum the figures of the Estimates for the last six years, and hon. Members will notice that there has been a continuous and heavy fall in the expenditure in the Army Estimates, although the rate of fall is naturally decreasing. The saving this year on the current effective charges of the Army is just over £1,100,000. The non-effective charges, that is, pensions and retired pay, show an increase of £74,000, and the War terminal charges show an increase of rather over £100,000. The £1,100,000, however, does not represent a cash saving due to reductions in the personnel of the Army. It is a balance figure resulting from a great many smaller increases and decreases on the various Votes, to the most important of which I propose to call attention.
For example, in Vote 1, the provision for the pay of the Army is snown to be reduced by £646,000; to the extent of £250,000 this reduction is due to the decrease in the rates of pay for new entrants into the Army which was introduced in October, 1925, and which is now beginning to make itself felt. On the other hand, 1928 is Leap Year, and also entails an extra pay day which calls for an increase of £200,000. The cost of living reduction in officers' pay means a saving of £18,000, and reduction in numbers and increased receipts account for the balance of the saving. On Vote 2 relating to the Territorial Army and Reserve Forces, there is a reduction of £69,000 on balance. £64.000 is due to the abolition of bounties for future entrants into the Territorial Army, and for those re-engaging for service after the 1st March. I propose to give to the House further information on this subject in a few moments. £45,000 is due partly to a reduction in the Army Reserve owing to a heavy run-off of specially enlisted Section D Reservists during the current financial year, and partly to the decision reached last
August to suspend recruiting for the Supplementary Reserve. As regards the Army Reserve, I anticipate that the loss will be largely, if not entirely, made up by the end of the financial year, and that from 1928 onwards the strength of the Reserve will increase steadily to a figure more nearly approaching that required for mobilisation than has been the case in the last few years.
Vote 3, relating to Medical Services, shows an increase of £60,000. This is in part due to improvements in pay and conditions of service of Army doctors. For some years past, the Army Medical Service has not attracted sufficient young men to maintain the numbers required. Complaints have been made by the medical profession, vigorously supported by the British Medical Association, of the inadequacy of pay, of the frequency of moves, and of the length of foreign service tours. Many of these complaints seemed to have been well founded, and though I took steps immediately, it was some time before new conditions could be put into force. The Cabinet appointed a Committee to enquire into the pay and conditions of service in the medical branches of the three Fighting Services, as it was impossible to deal with one without the others. Following the report of the Committee, the Royal Warrant of July of last year was issued under which improved terms and conditions of service have been granted, and the British Medical Association is now recommending service in the Royal Army Medical Corps as a career for young qualified practitioners. But I still want more candidates. In January last there was ' a larger entry, but I have still got vacancies, and there are two features of the new conditions to which I would like to draw the attention of newly-qualified medical men. Those who take up a house appointment can, under certain conditions, get an ante-date to their commission; in other words, the service in an appointment at a hospital will count as service in the Army; and the other innovation is that after seven years' service an officer can retire with a gratuity of £1,000. This may be attractive to young medicals who want to see a bit of the world before settling down to civil practice and to whose capital an addition of £1,000 may prove extremely useful. The Army owes much to its medical
officers, and I hope the reforms now operating will ensure a service as contented as it is efficient.
The next considerable variation to which I think I should call the attention of the House is that on Vote 6, the Vote which includes Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts. There is a saving on balance of £254,000. The cost of provisions and forage shows a decrease of over £150,000. There are considerable savings in the purchase of remounts, and there are other minor economies. On the other hand, the amount set aside for mechanical transport is increased by over £100,000. Vote 8 shows an increase of £286,000. This increase is mainly due to the reduction of the Appropriation-in-Aid which we estimated we should receive last year from the sale of old stores. The War surplus is rapidly disappearing, and the amount that we can expect this year and in subsequent years is consequently less and less. Moreover, both this year and in subsequent years it is becoming necessary to replace depleted stocks, and this Vote, therefore, is bound to increase. On Vote 10, we have a decrease on balance of £645,000. We are saving £782,000 this year owing to the loan under the Military Works Loan Acts having been repaid, but heavy expenditure has still to be met to provide the accommodation which the Army lost when the troops ceased to be stationed in the Irish Free State. £300,000 will be spent on Catterick; £150,000 at Smallshot, and smaller sums on other accommodation elsewhere. Total expenditures for works abroad are £205,400, which includes a first instalment of £40,000 towards the cost of the military defences of the Singapore Naval Base. This Vote for Works and Buildings has been most carefully combed through, and every effort has been made to cut off any expenditure which is not absolutely necessarv on bricks and mortar, but our housing problems are almost as acute in the Army as with the civilians. On Salisbury Plain, we have a cottage housing scheme which is estimated to cost £195,000, of which we are spending £10,000 this year. At Didcot we are spending £35,000 to complete housing accommodation for certain civilians connected with the Ordnance Depot. The total expenditure this year to provide or to improve married quarters for officers will be £110,000, and the expenditure to provide
or improve married quarters for noncommissioned officers and men will be £180,000.
Vote II shows an increase of £387,000. This is not a real increase; it is more than accounted for by the provision under Sub-head D. in respect of the garrison at Aden. Aden has been hitherto administered by the Government of India, and the cost of the whole garrison fell, in the first instance, on Indian funds. It has now been decided that the political and military administration of Aden should be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the expenditure in connection with it will be borne on the Middle Eastern Services Vote of the Colonial Office. The change is being made because in recent years Aden has assumed a far wider importance in Imperial communications than that of a port of call on the voyage to India, and because it is hoped that the cost of its defence may be reduced if it be treated as a part of the whole of the Middle East. The whole cost will in future be defrayed in the first instance from Army funds and will be recoverable from the Middle Eastern Services Vote. Provision has accordingly been made in Vote 1 for an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Middle Eastern Vote for the same amount as is debited in this Vote.
I have dealt with the main increases and decreases, together making up the reduction to which I have called attention; and I will now ask hon. Members to consider for a few moments some of the larger aspects of the Estimates. I have to provide for an expanding programme of mechanisation, upon which more money is being spent this year and much more will have to be spent in subsequent years. Accumulations of stocks of ammunition and other stores are being exhausted, and additional money will be required for their replacement. Unless, therefore, the Estimates are to be increased—and the pressure is all the other way,, for each year a reduction is called for—I have got to find the new money by a reduction of present expenditure. Last year I saved a large sum by reducing the Corps of Military Accountants, and this year I am making some administrative economies, but there is no large saving possible now on the administrative side. I am seeking a
saving in two directions. I hope to obtain from the Cavalry this year £93,000 rising to £237,000 in a year when the full effect is realised, and I hope to secure by the abolition of the bounties for new entrants and for re-engagements, after the 28th February, in the Territorial Army the sum of £64,000 this year, rising to£332,000 when the full saving is reached in a few years' time. Although I make a small saving on the Cavalry, as I shall show, the money so saved will be used to modernise and improve their fighting value, and in the same way the money taken from the Territorial Army Vote will go back to the Territorial Army in ammunition, stores and equipment, the stocks of which are now becoming exhausted.
I will first explain my proposal regarding the cavalry. There is a responsible body of opinion holding that in principle the day of the horse is over and that the duties of the cavalry should be performed, and would be better performed, by aeroplanes and by troops mounted in rapidly moving cross-country vehicles, such as light fast tanks and armoured cars. On the other band, it is urged that there are many military situations possible in various parts of the world in which, compared with the adaptability of the horsed unit, a mechanically transport, d unit would be a great disadvantage. At present an unbridged river presents an unpassable obstacle to tanks, and presents but few difficulties to cavalry. There are many rivers in countries in which our Army must be prepared to operate. What then is the truth between those conflicting opinions? I believe the truth is that we have not yet got the data upon which to make an irrevocable decision as to the kind of military force which is to do the work hitherto done by the cavalry. For the present the best solution appears to be a combination of the two.
Last year I asked a. Committee of military experts to give me some advice as to the cavalry requirements of the Army. They directed my attention, in the first place, to two grave defects in the cavalry as it is organised and equipped to-day. To take its place effectively in a modern army the cavalry regiment has neither sufficient mobility nor adequate fire power. The lack of mobility is due partly to the excessive
weight that the troop horse now has to carry. This seriously reduces a regiment's speed and range of action, and the already narrow radius of action is still further limited by its dependence on its ponderous and slow-moving transport. The lack of fire power is partly due to an insufficiency of machine guns and partly to the unsuitability of the Hotchkiss gun. The Army Council has decided to take steps immediately to remedy the defects so far as possible by providing mechanical vehicles for the first line transport and eight machine guns instead of four as at present, to he carried in mechanical vehicles instead of on pack horses. The question of finding a more efficient gun than the Hotchkiss will be actively pursued. At present this reorganisation will be confined to six line regiments at home, but the intention is to extend the new organisation to all the cavalry as funds become available, subject to such modifications as experience may suggest.
More research and experiments are necessary before we come to a final decision. To mechanise the cavalry completely with an unsuitable vehicle, and there is no suitable vehicle at present, would be a most expensive mistake. The horse may not be all that it should be, but in the meantime it is better than a vehicle that is all that it should not he. But I can assure the House that the provision of a suitable cross-country vehicle is the subject of continuous research and experiment. Meanwhile the reorganisation which provides for the mechanisation of the first line transport and the carriage of the machine guns enables me to increase cavalry mobility and fire power and at the same time to reduce the number of men and horses. For the present the cavalry regiments, instead of consisting of a headquarter wing including the machine gun troops and three sabre squadrons, will consist of the headquarter wing, a machine gun squadron mechanised, two sabre squadrons and mechanised first line transport. I have also taken the opportunity to concentrate all recruit training in the regiments, and this enables me to effect an economy by abolishing the cavalry depot. The savings consequent upon these various alterations amount to a reduction of 47 officers, 1,294 other ranks, and 1,445
horses, making a saving in 1927 of £93,000, rising in a full year to £237,000.
Now I come to the Territorial Army. The strength on the let January last was 6,760 officers and 139,762 other ranks, showing an increase of 159 officers and 1,187 other ranks, compared with the year before. Progress has been made in each of the last five years; each year has shown some increase upon the numbers of the previous year. Of the 14 Territorial divisions, two are within 10 per cent, of establishment, seven are within 20 per cent. of establishment, and five are between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of establishment. I have not included in the divisions the anti-aircraft units which have been formed comparatively recently. Recruits have been coming in better, but the units are still a good deal below strength. Of the 14 yeomanry and two scout regiments, eight are practically up to establishment, while the remaining eight are well within 20 per cent. of establishment. Next year we are estimating to spend in cash on the Territorial Army, excluding stores, the sum of £3,452,600, but the total cost, on a cost accounting basis, will be something like £4,752,000. The difference between these two figures, some £1,300,000, represents the issue of ammunition and stores from Army stocks, whether surplus or requiring provision, and includes depreciation of non-consumable stores; but, just as in the regular Army, the war supplies of ammunition and warlike stores are being rapidly exhausted. Next year and each following year a larger sum in cash will have to be provided for the purchase of ammunition and new equipment. Last year an all-over cut of £160,000 was made in the Territorial Army Estimates. Forty-three thousand pounds arose from economies which I am repeating this year, but the balance was derived from the use of surplus capital in the hands of the Territorial associations, and other reductions which cannot be repeated.
I am confronted, therefore, with the double problem of finding substitutes for last year's economies and of providing for the increased needs of the future. I have therefore decided to disband eight casualty clearing stations, two veterinary evacuating stations, and two veterinary hospitals, which 'will save about £8,000, but I need not merely a further sum this year but a still larger sum in the follow-
ing years, and so with much regret I have been forced to abolish the bounty for new entrants and for re-engagements on and after the 1st of March. The reduction will not apply to men serving on present engagements. The saving, which as I have said amounts this year to £64,000 rising to £322,000, will grow much in the same proportion as the cash cost of ammunition and stores will grow, and the Territorial Army will get back in necessaries all that it loses in bounties. The real choice is between a Territorial Army properly equipped with ammunition and stores and a Territorial Army starved of ammunition and modern equipment. I do not disguise that much anxiety will be felt, and I confess to sharing it, as to the effect of the abolition of the bounty on recruiting. I have gathered a good many opinions from commanding officers and others, as well as from those closely connected with the Territorial Associations. The opinions differ. Some think it will make no difference and others fear that recruiting will be seriously affected. Let me remind hon. Members that there was no bounty at all before the War, that when the Territorial Force was reconstituted in 1920 the maximum bounty was fixed at £5 and that when in 1922 the Geddes Axe fell the bounty was reduced from £5 to £3. I have examined the recruiting returns to see whether the reduction of the bounty made any difference to recruiting, and I cannot say that I can find that any difference was made. Certainly the numbers were greater in 1922 than in 1921, and the following year showed an increase.
I need not say that the abolition of the bounty was not decided upon without most serious consideration. I notice in some articles and letters in the Press that I am accused of having come to this conclusion without having consulted the Territorial Associations. Let me tell the House exactly the course I followed. Last year there was a lump-sum cut of £160,000, without that sum having been allocated amongst the various items of expenditure, and that had to be examined after the Estimates had passed this House. I was determined that I would not be caught a second time and that I would examine the position of the Territorial Army and
the economies to be effected, if any, long before Budget day, and in July last I set up a Committee in the War Office to consider what economies could be made if they were enforced upon us, and in what order of merit they should be made. That Committee had the advantage of consultations with the Vice-Chairman of the Council of the Territorial Associations. That Council represents all the Territorial Associations except one, and that particular association has not joined them. They were consulted in July last. I do not hold the Vice-Chairman of the Council of the Territorial Associations responsible for what the Committee advised, still less do I hold, him responsible for what I have done. The point I wish to make is that he was consulted as long ago as last July.

Major-General Sir H HUTCHISON: May I ask how it was that commanding officers only knew on Friday what was carried out on Monday?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Was the Vice-Chairman of the Council there in a representative capacity? Was he engaged in confidential negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman, or was he able to consult the Council?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In July last he was obviously appearing in his personal capacity and he was advising the Committee that I set up to see what reductions, if any, could be made. I will answer the question, if I may, in a moment. I want to take the House with me in order of date. In February last I had the Committee's Report in front of me. I then had proposals sketched out, including the abolition of the bounty and several other proposals, and on 9th February the Vice-Chairman of the Council, to whom I have referred, was informed of these proposals and asked to bring them before the Council of the Territorial Association. He did so on 9th February. The Council set up a Committee of its members to consider those proposals and to make counter-suggestions. That Committee reported, and a deputation from the Council came to see me at the War Office on 21st February, bringing that report with them. They took exception to the proposal to abolish the bounties and they made various counter-proposals. One of them was that £124,000 should be taken from the cloth-
ing reserve, but, as I pointed out, that was in the nature of a capital item and should not be applied for the annual expenditure. They also proposed an overall cut of 6 per cent. on the main Territorial Army Grants, which they thought would realise £90,000. But I was advised that such a cut would work out very unequally and would not in fact realise anything like its nominal amount.
The Committee also objected to a proposal which had been, put before them to reduce the establishments of the battalions, and I am glad to say that I was able to meet them in that really very important matter. But it is really not fair to say that either I or the Army Council have ignored or put any slight upon the Territorial Army or its administration. It is not possible to consult every association separately, hut we did consult the Council of the Association, and in this I followed the usual practice. The County of London Territorial Association is, I understand, not a member of that Council, but the Council I am told, invited the County of London Association to be present at that meeting on 9th February, and I believe they were also represented on the committee appointed by the Council. So that it is again not accurate to say that the County of London Association had not got warning of the proposals that would be considered. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite asked me just now whether the commanding officers knew before a quite recent date. No, they did not, and if lie will consider for a moment he will see that if the bounty is to he cut off, it is obvious that no warning ought to be given, because that would be unfair as between man and man. Some who happened to be near, or could make up their minds at once, would thereupon re-engage and get a bounty for four years, but others who are equally efficient and equally entitled to consideration, for some other reason, might not then re-engage, but might wish to be re-engaged at a date afterwards, and they would get no bounty at all.

Mr. MACPHERSON: What was the date of the Army Order?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The date of the Army Order was somewhere about 26th February, but I am not quite
sure at the moment. It operated as from 1st March. If there is the slightest lingering doubt in anyone's mind that the Territorial Army has been slighted or that its representatives have been ignored, let me repeat that neither the Army Council nor I had any such intention. Of course I recognise that the loss of the bounty will call for great exertion on the part of those who are responsible for recruiting, and for a greater sacrifice on the part of those who give, their time to the country by serving in the Territorial Army. I cannot expect that the abolition of the bounty is going to he popular, but I believe that if we do not allow its effect to be exaggerated, if we make the best of the position, Territorial Army will survive, and even if there is some falling off in some units, greater efforts in making known the attractions of the service will quickly enable us to recover from any temporary set-back.
Now I want to say a few words about further mechanisation of the Army. We are estimating to spend this year about £238,000 on new mechanical vehicles, and we have set aside £125,000 for research and experiment. The Memorandum that I have circulated gives detailed particulars. This expenditure is really very small when it is remembered bow big is the problem which we arc just beginning to tackle. The internal combustion engine has revolutionised civil society in the last 20 years, and I do not doubt that the changes it will cause in the Army will be not less noticeable in the next 20 years. Though for a petrol-driven army the tactical functions will remain in form identical with those of present-day forces, yet in degree these functions will he greatly extended. Where in the past cavalry moved perhaps 20 miles ahead of an army in order to search for the enemy, armoured cars will possibly be able to move more than 100miles. For holding the enemy, these machines and others, such as mechanised machine gun units, will be able to circle round an adversary, and tanks which are impervious to bullets, will have it in their power to hit and smash with far greater effect than the existing arms.
To protect such petrol-driven weapons, obviously artillery must be able to move and follow over all natures of country,
and consequently that arm must also be mechanised. It seems clear that, although the tactical functions remain the same in form, they are likely to change so extensively in degree that years of thought and experiment will have to be given to the numerous problems which the power of petrol has introduced into the realms of war. In order to gain practical experience of the effect of mechanisation on tactics, an experimental force is being formed at Tidworth,, composed of completely mechanised units. It comprises one tank battalion; an armoured car company; a field brigade, Royal Artillery; a pack battery, Royal Artillery; and a field company, Royal Engineers; a signal unit, and one infantry battalion re-equipped as a machine gun battalion with 36 machine guns. This force will be placed under the command of an officer who has made a special study of mechanical warfare, and I hope that the lessons to he derived from this force will be of very material value in guiding the further development of mechanisation and in determining the nature of vehicles required.

Viscount SANDON: Does my right hon. Friend mean Vickers machine guns or Lewis guns?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Vickers guns. The Army is progressing. Although financial necessities have compelled a constant reduction in the numbers of personnel and the amounts expended, we are constantly endeavouring to increase efficiency by improved mobility and greater fire power. We are making the utmost provision possible for research and experiment in mechanised vehicles. If we had more money and could afford to take risks, we could go faster, but within our limits I believe that the best is being obtained. Once again I have to thank the Army Council for whole-hearted support, and for their assistance in rendering possible a reduction in the Estimates.

Mr. S. WALSH: Whatever else Members of the House may think, I am quite sure they will all agree that they have listened to a very interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman in the presentation of his annual Estimates—a speech, the interest of which was rendered not one jot or title the less because of that
wonderfully vivid description of the mechanised army at Tidworth. My mind went back to so many speeches in which it was stated that the Great War was to be the last war—"Never again!" Yet all the best brains that we possess are devoted to considering the most effective method of decimating human life in future. However, that is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault. He is at the head of a Department whose special duty it is to apply itself to the consideration of these problems. I would like to pay just a word of tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the Department over which he presides. In these days, when it has become the recognised procedure of Departments to exceed their Estimates by millions of pounds, it is refreshing to be able to congratulate the War Department on having, during the last six years, set an example to every other Department in the State by having on each occasion kept well within the Estimates. I say that because I think it is necessary to give credit when credit is due. After what one has seen, apart altogether from experience at the War Office itself, during the last twenty years in this House, that we are almost always met in the case of other Departments with excess expenditure and apologetic Supplementary Estimates—it is necessary And desirable to give credit where credit is due.
It may be said that the estimated saving is only a little one. It is quite true that there is only an estimated saving of £935,000, but in these days we have to he thankful for small mercies, and this saving is vastly different from some of our later experiences in these matters. One's congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman are, however, somewhat mixed, because his vision of a saving of £935,000 has been rudely dispelled by the Shanghai expedition for which he will ask the House to vote a Supplementary Estimate to-morrow. Again, I think that is his misfortune and not his fault. He is the victim of a cruel fate His intentions, I think, were honourable. The House will welcome the change that has taken place in respect of the mechanisation of certain cavalry arms. If war were simply a series of beautiful and enthralling pictures, one would vote for the continuance of cavalry. Dashing charges, superb horsemanship—all that kind of thing makes a great appeal and
is part and parcel of the romance of war, but, as I said two years ago, and as I believe to-day, in so far as modern warfare is concerned the proper place for the horse is a zoological museum. Having regard to the conditions which obtain, the constant changes in mechanisation, the infinite possibilities of mechanical development, the enormous alterations that have already taken place, the tremendous degree of power which has been developed, and the awful possibilities which still lie ahead, the place of the horse, as I say, is in a museum.
I am sure the House will congratulate the Department, first, that they have abolished the Cavalry Depot, and, secondly, that they have saved the cost of 12 squadrons—a squadron in each home regiment. They have saved, altogether, I think the right hon. Gentleman said about £93,000 in respect of the ensuing year, and that economy will extend, roughly speaking, to a quarter of a million, when the full saving has been developed. If it were a saving of money alone it would indeed be desirable, though it would only be a minor consideration; but the highest efficiency is being accomplished as a result of these changes. If we are to visualise war at all, if armies must exist, there can be no getting away from this fact that they ought to exist on the highest possible standard of efficiency. That is the only justification for having an army at ail; and I am satisfied, as I believe the vast majority of thinking men in the country will be satisfied, that these changes make for the highest efficiency as well as for economy. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Army Council on making those changes. I am glad to hear that research is going on with a view to carrying on this kind of change on even more highly developed lines, and I am sure that on those lines the army will become very much more efficient than it is at the present time.
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the controversy regarding the Territorial Army but, as he is aware, a good deal of attention was paid by my colleagues on the Army Council and myself, in slightly earlier days, to the matter of vocational training. The right hon. Gentleman in his Memorandum refers to the fact that every year 28,000 to 30,000 men, mainly
in the prime of life, leave the Army to find places in civil life. Out of that 28,000 to 30,000 men not more than about 8,000 may be said to possess the necessary degree of skill and craftsmanship to ensure that they will find places easily in civil life, and 20,000 to 22,000 are very seriously handicapped. In these circumstances it was that vocational training centres were set up. There were Army vocational centres at Catterick and Hounslow, and command vocational training classes at Aldershot and other places; and though the reasons may be quite good, I am sorry to see that the Council have decided to put an end to the command vocational training classes. According to the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum 1,000 men were trained and passed from those classes during the last year. Roughly speaking, the same number passed from Hounslow and Catterick. As I say, it may be that the reasons are sufficiently good, but the necessity for this training, especially in the last six months of the soldier's Army life, is so great that I would be glad to see every method, whether command classes or Army vocational centres, utilised to the fullest possible extent.
I am speaking entirely from hearsay, but I think it has been said that the command vocational training classes did not turn out a body of men whose education and skill reached the standard of the Catterick or Hounslow training. The fact remains that the; men were trained, that 1,000 of them passed only last year and that they have a better chance of getting places in civil life after that training. These results seem in themselves to be so desirable that I look with great regret on the decision to abolish the command training classes. I am glad to see that the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman last year is being carried out, and that the training at Catterick is to be extended and the resources of the centre more widely developed. That is a good thing, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Army Council on that decision. I observe in the Estimates that the sale of agricultural produce at Catterick is expected to bring in well over £10,000 in this financial year. That is a very good thing. It shows how extremely valuable this experiment has proved, even in financial results, hut the financial results do not show how valuable has
been the training given at this centre. From that centre 48 married men passed last year to Australia and the Antipodes —admitted to be the finest types of emigrants that the old country can send. It is impossible to exaggerate the new sense of independence and self-reliance, the new sense of manhood, that a man gets when he has had training which enables him to feel that he is something more than the product of the drill sergeant. He is independent; he has the power largely of shaping his own future; he is a self-respecting citizen and can take his full place in society. That is the kind of training which is being given at Catterick.
"We have a real responsibility in this matter. The nation, speaking through one of its State Departments, namely, tile War Department, has a great responsibility towards these men. Even under the shortest term of service we hold these men for six years under the closest conditions of discipline. The man has to abandon his individuality, practically speaking. It may be said that he enters into a contract with the State; that he does so with his eyes open, and that there is no conscription and no compulsion upon him. That may well be, but it does not lessen our moral responsibility to the soldier. It is our duty to see that he is given an opportunity, at any rate in the later period of his Army service, to acquire that trade or calling which will give him a real chance of regaining his place in civil rife and earning a livelihood for himself and his family. The work at Catterick is excellent. My colleagues and I take a great interest in it. I am not going to deny for one moment that an equal interest is taken in it by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I do not take one atom of credit to myself or my colleagues more than I concede to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but it would be well if We could develop this kind of training and make it much more comprehensive than it is at present.
Those of us who have visited the centre know what is going on there. We have seen men engaged in agricultural pursuits, and in the rearing of that animal for which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister feels a great affection—in the words of the Irish-
man, "the gentleman who pays the rent." We have seen pig-rearing, dairy-farming, agriculture in all its aspects, and horticulture, and I think the horticulturist there need not "pale his fires" before any other. In addition to agricultural and horticultural training, there is training in building, wood-work and carpentry. It gives to the soldier a new sense of dignity, a feeling of manhood and independence, to which he must have been a stranger for many years. That is the kind of work which the Army ought to take up, which the Army has a moral obligation to take up, and it is a work which ought to be developed in a far greater degree than has been the case up to the present.
5.0.p.m.
I believe it is said that the command centres have been ended, first of all, because the students from them—using the term in its broad sense—the soldiers in the command centres have not attained the same standard of skill which has been reached in the other places, and also because there is a matter of finance. Finance in this particular matter seems to me to be one of the conditions to which the very least attention ought to be paid. The development of the manhood of the soldier before he leaves us altogether, the giving to him of an increased sense of independence, are worth all the thousands of pounds we can spend upon such an object: it is of infinitely greater value than the few thousand pounds that the command centres might cost. I am not speaking in this matter in any fault-finding spirit. I would like in passing, to say one word as to the manner in which the Estimates have been presented. I have nothing but praise for the very full notes and explanations which have been given upon every Vote and every subheading They have been presented to this House in such a way as to give in formation upon practically every topic, and this reflects great credit upon the Department. I think it is only right for me to say this, because last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and I fell across each other, in a good-natured way, of course, because thought a departure was being made which would not have the effect of maintaining the control of this House over the finances of his Department. I am happy to say that, so far as I can see from an
examination which I have made, my fears were ill-founded, and I think it only right to say that because of the attitude which I previously took.

Mr. MACFPHERSON: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a moment or two, because I quite realise that there are many hon. Members who would like to take part in this Debate. Before I deal with the speech which was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, may I join with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken in congratulating the Department upon the manner in which they have produced the Estimates to the House of Commons? The volume, which I have no doubt many hon. Members have in their hands, and which is interleaved with the Army Estimates, gives the fullest information with regard to the Votes, and I think this shows quite clearly that the Department is sincerely anxious in every way to explain each individual Vote and to show that it is out in the interest of economy. Usually in the Army Estimates Debate, we hear a great deal about the efficiency of the Army. I think anybody who listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for War could come to only one conclusion, and that was that the Army as a whole at the present moment is in a highly efficient state. Not only is it in an efficient state, but I think its discipline and conduct are admirable. The splendid conduct, the fine behaviour and the cheery optimism of our troops who are at present policing in Shanghai, have met with the commendation of the whole world. I am as keen as anyone, I trust, in this House, in the interests of economy, but there is economy and economy. I am sure the House is delighted to see any Estimate reduced year after year, but it all depends, in my judgment, in what direction that economy goes. Some economies may be false, economies and very often these false economies are also pettifogging economies.
I, for one—and I believe there is a very large volume of opinion in this House in sympathy with me—am strongly opposed to even the semblance of economy in the direction of the Territorial Army at the present moment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is in a very difficult position. He knows perfectly well what popular
opinion is on this particular point, and, if I may say so with respect, he dealt with it frankly and openly and did his best to defend it; but in my judgment no defence is possible at the present moment of this cheese-paring policy. There is no doubt that there is a feeling of genuine alarm in the minds of all those who are interested in the Territorial Army, in relation to the defence of the country at this time. We were told quite openly, in the speech to which we have listened, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War quite suddenly proposed at the end of last month—it was all done over the week-end, and there is much to be said against the method in which this thing was proposed and done—to abolish in future all bounties for entrance into the Territorial Army and all bounties for re-engagement. He told us with a feeling of pride, as I understood him, that in this year we will save £64,000, and that in succeeding years he was going to save no less than £332,000. But the very magnitude of the last figure is what alarms me more than anything else. My right hon. Friend has said that he examined the recruiting figures—and this was his main justification—and found that during the last two or three years some progress had been made in recruiting. But the Territorial Army establishment at the moment, 30,000 less than the full establishment, and he must remember, and anyone who has been connected with the War Office knows perfectly well, that bounties were not really given for recruiting purposes. When the new bounties were given in 1920, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for War, they were given, first of all, to popularise recruiting in the Territorial Army. The bounties are paid, not really for recruiting, but for efficiency.
It is, in my judgment, neither a sound nor a valid argument to say that, looking at the figures available during the last three or four years, progress has been made in recruiting. The real object of the bounty is to turn out an efficient soldier. I am not going to labour the point, which is made very frequently in the Press, namely, that the bounties are very useful out-of-pocket expenses, except to add this comment. It is perfectly true that every Territorial, either officer or man, who volunteers to give up almost
all his spare time for this work on behalf of the country, is entitled to have his out-of-pocket expenses paid. But that is not the point. My right hon. Friend says that this discontinuance to the Territorial Army soldier of his bounty will not militate against his efficiency. In my judgment it will; and I would be delighted to see every Territorial Army soldier receiving that bounty. If my argument is right, that it is in its essence given for efficiency, then, the larger the amount, the more efficient will larger the whole of the Territorial Army. I am not going to cavil at the way in which this was done, but I do think it is a wise thing to take the whole Council of the Territorial Army Association into one's confidence before one upsets public feeling in connection with the voluntary movement. It was the custom in the old days, when the War Office found themselves faced with a difficulty in the offing, that they consulted the entire Council of the Association. I, myself, had the honour of meeting the Territorial Army Association, and the question was openly discussed in the presence of the newspapers. I am perfectly certain, and I am sure I am speaking for everyone who is in an official position, that I received great advantage from, the full, frank, and free discussion with them of important questions such as this. But the Territorial Army officers have not been consulted. I am told on the very best authority that some of these officers only knew this to be official the Friday before it actually came into force.
There is no doubt that that Method always creates a suspicion in the minds of those who are interested in a problem this kind. It is no answer to say, as my right hon. Friend says, that all the money of which he is depriving the Territorials is going to go back to the Territorial Army in stores and ammunition. What is the good of sending back stores and ammunition to that Army if you are going to shut off its sense of responsibility, to destroy all recruiting for it, and to make the men feel that at any given moment the same sort of thing would happen again. That is undermining the value of that great volunteer force, and I do not know what the justification for it was. My right hon. Friend said it would have been a mistake to give a long notice. I do not know why it should have been a mistake.
In a matter of this kind, public opinion ought to be informed, and the officers and men ought to be informed, so that proper investigation could be made of the problem as a whole and representations could come to headquarters from the proper sources. Why should my right hon. Friend, when he is so anxious to obtain economy, go to the one Force which, in my judgment, commands the respect of all right thinking men in this country? It is the only second line of defence in this country at the present moment. The War Office, since the War—they may be right or they may be wrong, I am not discussing it—abolished the Special Reserve. They have no use for the Militia, and they have some form of Supplementary Reserve, but the Territorial Army is the only second line of defence, and the Territorial enlistment is quite different from the enlistment of the Volunteers in the old days. If a Territorial officer, upon enlistment, volunteers for service abroad, surely that is very important. Is that not one of the most important things you you should foster—the desire to get these men, and to get them to become highly efficient? But the moment you interfere with these small things, which a grateful country ought to give to an efficient soldier, in my judgment you are doing the defence of the country a serious injustice and very great harm.
Let me take one other point, which shows that there is a feeling of suspicion about this matter in the country. It may be wholly undeserved, but it is there. Is it true that the Duke of York's head quarters, for so long associated with the Territorial Army in the Metropolis, is going to be destroyed? It is quite true, I am told, that the 14 Territorial divisions cost only the same amount to keep efficient as one division of the Regular Army. If that be so, surely it is very bad policy to attempt to cut down what these men who enlist for voluntary service value so much, and what their commanding officers say is a most valuable asset in the training of troops. Why take that amount? As I said in a previous part of my speech, I am far more alarmed by the amount of £332,000, which my right hon. Friend says he can save in a few years, than he can possibly be pleased by the thought of being able to save it. I am greatly delighted that some reorganisa-
tion of six cavalry regiments is to take place. I understand that mechanizing— hate the word, but I suppose there is no better—of all the cavalry will take place in the near future. From the statements which were made authoritatively by my right hon. Friend—and I understood that he had appointed a committee to discuss the whole question and go into it—it is clear that the cavalry as it existed in the old days can no longer exist, and if efficiency can be adequately acquired by reorganising the cavalry regiments in that way, I, for one, would not oppose it. I believe a right hon. Friend of mine on this Bench last year pressed that very strongly.
I think a word of praise is due to the fact that my right hon. Friend has considered the position of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I am delighted to hear that even the British Medical Council has instigated recruiting in that Service now. Those who followed the fate of that Service during the War know perfectly well what a magnificent work it did. Here is a case where you are giving a little bounty to men who come in, and they come in willingly. In the other case, you are taking a bounty from them, and they probably will not come in at all. I hope that the Army Council will continue vocational training, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench. There is nothing finer or better for the soldier than vocational training. I know personally of numbers of cases where good has been done, and I am sure that in every quarter of the House this vocational training and anything that will foster it will receive the support of hon. Members.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: If I say a few words of criticism of the policy which has been outlined to-day, I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will realise that it is not because I do not realise his difficulties, and certainly not because I want in any way to impair the strength of His Majesty's Government, for I realise only too fully that, if anything happened to the Government, we might be confronted with war all through the world, and I particularly hate war. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned this afternoon, in reply to certain criticisms made in the papers, that he is really of
opinion that the treatment of the Territorial Associations was not too hasty. I would ask him to remember that the Territorial organisation, built up through the length and breadth of this country, is composed of perhaps the very best people that you have in the whole of this country with regard to the amount of time which they give up in serving their country in an honorary capacity, and I think he will probably agree that the Council of the Territorial Associations contains some of those who, in the work of public service, are the bulwark of our race. What was the time given? I believe the date of 9th February was mentioned, but what was the procedure after that? Our Associations all over the country had to be called together. We are scattered, and it is very difficult to find dates without clashing with all the other public duties on which our members serve, yet we find that the whole thing was finally decided on the 26th.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Earlier than that.

Sir H. CROFT: I submit, with all respect, that that was not treating the Territorial Associations of this country quite fairly.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When my hon. and gallant Friend says the Associations had to be called together, I would remind him that the 9th February was the day when the Council was meeting, and the Council, having been called together, was informed on the 9th February, and then it appointed a sub-committee.

Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that after that we had to have the procedure of spreading this most vital information to all the associations in the country, and then to come back again through the usual channels. I do not want to labour the point, because the thing seems to have been done, but I want to ask the House to consider what kind of effect a policy like this will have on the Territorial Army. Perhaps, as I have spent some 27 years in the Force, and in the Volunteers before them, and am now on an association, I may be permitted to speak on the subject, and if I speak very moderately, I hope it will not be thought that my feelings are not very deep. The
Territorial Army, in my opinion, is quite the cheapest force in the whole world, in any country. It is the cheapest insurance that any nation has got, and I think that hon. Members in the official Opposition will admit that it is a defensive force, and not a, force which is in shining armour, threatening the world. It is only called into being as a mobilised force at a time of very grave national danger, when Parliament so decides.
The Territorial Army started to reorganise after the War under very great difficulties, and I sometimes think it is not quite realised what were the difficulties of commanding officers and regimental officers in having completely to reconstruct that army. I remember that I was rather nervous, as one of the very numerous commanding officers, when I was suddenly told: "Here you are, you and a sergeant-major, and you have to build up your battalion." It was not easy, and we had to spend a great deal of time, and in some cases it was like fighting a prolonged election campaign to explain all the advantages of a Territorial Army. Anyhow, we succeeded up to a certain point, and we started with very high hopes. We were full of optimism that, after the lessons of the War, the people of this country would realise that in the Territorial Army they had a remarkably cheap and a wonderfully efficient force, considering the amount of training. We thought that when it was remembered that certain units of the Territorial Army were actually in the field for the first defence of Ypres, it was something which was to be encouraged and which should not be subject to the kind of shocks to which it has recently been subjected.
Before the War, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Territorial Force of that time had no bounty paid to the men, but it is hardly right to compare the Territorial Force of before the War with the Territorial Army of to-day. The whole situation has changed, and the value of the Territorial Army as such has increased out of all knowledge, owing to the fact that it is recruited, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said just now, on the basis that it is prepared to go to any part of the world
directly Parliament decides that the emergency is sufficiently serious. This complete change as to liability to service received no recompense whatsoever from the nation, except this question of the bounty. I admit that it is no recompense for a man to offer his life and lose his business and everything else on mobilisation, but still it was something, and the mere fact that it was given to this force which had undertaken this greatly increased responsibility seems to me to be a very good reason why it should not be taken away. But economy was started, I think, in 1922, when, the right hon. Gentleman told us, the bounty was cut down from £5 to £3. Again last year the right hon. Gentleman came along and told the Territorial Associations that they had to make very considerable cuts in other directions, and we are now told that the bounty is to be swept away entirely and that nothing of this character is to be left for the private soldier.
I quite agree that if you take the total economy on the Army, the proportion of economy on the Territorial Army is not, on the face of it, an unfair one, but these economies year after year have really cut the Territorial Army down to the bone, and I can assure my right hon. Friend, knowing all his difficulties, that if this goes on, there is a limit to the service that men are prepared to give. It really is heartbreaking for men, who are giving a very great part of their lives in order to maintain the efficiency of the Territorial Army, to find these questions coming along year after year, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the whole House, will realise that this cannot go on year after year without disastrous results. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the people of this country are so amazing that, even in spite of what has been done, it may be that the. Territorial recruiting will not suffer very severely. Really, after knowing the Territorials and the men who make up the force, the private soldiers, I should be surprised at nothing they might do, but that is not the point. As one who had to reconstruct a battalion in this country after the War, and although I know it is not intended that way, for I realise that probably at the last moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to come along and say: "In view of certain
things that have happened, we have to force a decision," and the right hon. Gentleman was probably placed in a very great difficulty—I realise all that—but there is danger that this kind of policy may be regarded as a breach of faith, and I think it is a great pity that for such a niggling economy the people who are giving their service and making this great self-sacrifice should feel that this decision had to be come to at all, and much more that it should have been come to in quite such a hasty manner should specially like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, when he refers to the re-entrants in the Territorial Army, that it seems to me to be really tragic that men who have been serving for years, and who probably were about to join again in two or three days' time, or a week, or a month, should have had no chance of signing on again on the same terms as before.
I will only say this in conclusion, that, as this decision is come to, may I not ask my right hon. Friend if something cannot be done in another direction to recognise the efficiency of the force? In the old days, before the War, I know how difficult it was to get a man to do his musketry, much less 30 or 40 drills, and that is what the bounty was for. At the end of the year, the man feels: "I have done my duty, and there is some recognition from the country." Now, may I not ask whether my right hon. Friend cannot consider some form of efficiency or proficiency pay for the members of the Territorial Army, so that we do not lose that stimulus to complete the musketry and the necessary number of drills? If he could do that, I think it might soften the blow very considerably, and surely he can find £20,000 or £30,000, or less, it may be—something of that kind—in order to heal the wound, which I think may otherwise be a grave one.

Mr. LAWSON: I was very much interested in the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman has issued, partly because of the emphasis laid upon the human side of the Army. I think the two pages of the Army Report dealing particularly with that subject did not by any means do recruiting any good, by emphasising the fact that unemployment insurance seemed to have interfered with recruiting and a good many things of that kind. I was, therefore, very pleased
to see the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum refer to
the normal experience that the better the state of employment the better is the intake of recruits.
I do not think it is at all a, good thing for the Army that we should be continually emphasising the need of unemployment in order to get recruits. As a matter of fact,
The low proportion of men finally accepted is still due mainly to the high physical standard required of a recruit.
It is also a regrettable fact, of which this House must take notice, that no less than 58 per cent. of the men who applied to joint the Army were
rejected on medical and physical grounds, chiefly owing to lack of development or to bad teeth.
I draw attention to this point in the Memorandum, because this country, in the lifetime of everyone in this House, had one of the most searching experiences that any country ever had into the physical standard of its manhood, and it does not seem we are very much improving from that point of view even ten years after the War. It is a matter of very grave concern to any Government and to any country on its social side that we should have such a state of things as this.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, naturally stressed what was the fundamental principle in the reductions of this year. We have had considerable reductions which, as he says, are due to that process which is described in the ugly word "mechanisation." We would be very pleased to see financial reductions following that mechanisation. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one particular part of the Estimates in which it seems to me—I may be wrong—that the reductions following from mechanisation have not exactly found their way into the remote corners of what I would call some of the local commands. We have this fact, that as the result of mechanical improvement in 1925 and 1926, the reduction of horses each year was, approximately, 300. This year the net reduction, I think, is 2,400. We have made a leap forward, and the difference between the reduction of horses in the previous two years and this year is very great indeed. I do not want to be, guilty of carping criticism, but I find that
we have at least £50,000 for new stabling. Of course, I am not saying new stables are not necessary; they may be in some parts. But what I do wish to point out is that on page 197 you have £9,000 for new stabling in 1927, and then on page 205, under Egypt, you have for Abbassia, New Remount Depot, £22,400. I think, as a matter of fact, that is the first stage of a general contract for an expenditure of £118,000. Then you have at Moascar £7,000 for new stabling. On page 194 you have £11,000 for new stabling for the Remount Depot at Arborfield Cross. Of course, it may be necessary to have these stables. While I would be second to none in my expression of appreciation of the efficiency of the War Office staff, I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that it is always very difficult to follow these reductions to their logical conclusion in the local commands, because of some kind of local pressure, and the only point I want to make about this matter is that I think it very possible very great diligence will have to be shown in following up the logical reductions that ensue from mechanisation in respect to the various local commands.
Before I leave that part, may I call attention once more to the difference between 300 reductions in the previous two years and 2,400 reductions this year? If that be any indication as to the rate of mechanisation, it is very possible that when these new stables are built, we may not have horses to put in them, and I would be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and gallant Gentleman for any information dealing with the particular details I have raised. There is the item of remounts. There is a reduction of £12,000 for officers' chargers, and of £68,200 for the purchase of horses, but there is no reduction in respect of the remount clerks. There are 550 clerks there. As a matter of fact, the remount service is actually increased £2,000, though the purchase of horses this year is about half what it was last year, incidentally, may I draw attention to the fact that the Estimate for "Expenses prior to animals joining Depots" is only down one-seventh, whereas the purchase of horses is little more than one-half? The short time I had the honour and privilege of serving in the Department I was able to appre
ciate the fact that fair and healthy criticism of this nature enables even those in the office to get down to facts which they themselves might have overlooked for the time being. I, too, trust, with my hon. Friend, that with the increase of mechanisation we have the possibility, at any rate, of reduction in the Estimates.
I must, say that, with the increase in mechanisation, some landmarks are going. I find in the Annual Report of the Army this year, for instance, that there are no more drivers of artillery. As I, through pain and tribulation, managed to rise to the full rank of a driver in the artillery. I noticed the disappearance of this particular landmark with a tinge of regret. But there is the satisfaction, at any rate, that there is the human side of this mechanisation, and that the gunner, with his aristocratic bearing, can no more lord it over the humble driver, who used to be treated with contempt by that lordly person.
I would also like to allude to the point raised by my right hon. Friend as to the educational and vocational side of the Army. We were enthusiastic, and I am sure, from what one sees in the Memorandum, the present members of the Department are enthusiastic about the educational and vocational side of the Army, that is its human side, and I think this year of all years there has been good reason for some satisfaction. Indeed, I rather expected it would have been mentioned by e Government side to-night. We have read that the top man in the Sandhurst examination this year was a ranker. I understand, as a matter of fact, there were several rankers among the first dozen.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): Seven.

Mr. LAWSON: Seven out of the first 12. I think that is a return for the money spent on education. I think I have seen in Press notices that two of the men were trained in old Army schools as boys, because they were sons, I believe, of ex-soldiers, perhaps non-commissioned officers. When I read those returns in the Press, I conjured up visions of the possibilities of a wider system of education and larger opportunities. I am one
of those who have appreciated the general education and the culture which as a rule the average officer has had, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says in his Memorandum that it is the higher standard of education and intelligence demanded by the complexity of modern methods which accounts for a certain number of rejections. The higher standard now demanded may encourage the hope that some day the average soldier may become an officer—as we recall the well-known tag about every soldier carrying a marshal's baton in his knapsack. It is very well known to all soldiers that when, by some strange turn of events in the history of the country, it has been possible for the average man to obtain a high command, that state of affairs has been reflected in the Army itself in a raising of the general morale. However, while I do not wish to engage in criticism, I have been wondering whether there ought not to be an overhauling of the educational system in the Army. Are we getting full value for our money? We are paying good salaries for the men who are at the head of the educational institutions and are teaching. The expenditure on the education of the rank and file of the Army, and the children of soldiers, exclusive of official training, is something like £147,000. The pay is extremely good; I should say that for some of the salaries we are paying in the higher grades we could obtain the services of some of the most skilled educationists in the country. I know that those who officer this particular branch are men of some education, but that does not always imply the skill to teach or that they have been trained to teach. I went into this matter to some extent when I happened to be in the Department, but our period of office was so short that it was impossible to follow it right through, and I would like to know whether the staff is composed of men who have had educational experience and, if not, what steps are being taken to insure that they shall be skilled in organising education and teaching. I have just thrown out that suggestion, because, while I think we are getting good value, it is just possible we might be able to get better value for the money spent. I hope the experience of this year will encourage the Department to provide even more scholarships
and give more opportunities to rankers to gain the higher reaches of the Army.
The Army Council and those in the Department who are responsible must feel that on the whole the results of the vocational training scheme have been extraordinary. There is good ground for satisfaction in the work done at Hounslow and Catterick; similar work, we hope, will be done at Aldershot. The scheme has become so popular that I have discovered that Parliamentary candidates are beginning to advocate it as a solution of the unemployment problem. I read an eloquent speech by a Conservative candidate the other day saying that what was done at Hounslow and Catterick might be done on a bigger scale. I think there is something in what he says, but I do not expect it to be done by the Army. The Army could extend their particular experiment with very little, if any, additional cost, because the extra overhead charges for almost double the number of men training at Catterick and Hounslow would he almost nil. The. Minister of Labour is running vocational training centres, I believe, and the Minister of Agriculture is running vocational training centres—everybody seems to be running them on his own particular lines; but I think all agree that the Army vocational centres are by far the most successful.
I wish that some day this Government, or any other Government, would concern itself with this problem, because I am convinced that if our Hounslows and Cattericks could be multiplied theme would be the possibility of a solution of the unemployed problem, though that is taking a daring line. The Colonies have paid the highest tribute to our work at Catterick, it was my experience of the staff of the War Office that they were warmly enthusiastic over the scheme, and I am pleased to see there is a possibility of its extension this year. I could almost wish the Catterick school were taken out of the present area, because I think it has been observed that it is gradually being encircled by the developments in that new military centre, which is not good either for the centre or for the vocational training there. I hope that what we find in the Memorandum is an indication of the spirit in which the whole scheme is to be dealt with this year. The status of the men of the Army will be raised and a good deal of
the civilian antagonism to the Army averted if the feeling that the Army is a "blind alley" is removed, and men are so trained that on leaving they will not feel they have been handicapped by their separation from civil life for several years, but are, rather, in an improved position as an outcome of the generous educational and vocational training they have received in the Army.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I wish for a few moments to bring the House back to the question of the Territorials and the cancellation of the Territorial bounty. Very few realise, I think, the immense difference in the position of the Territorial Army now and 13 years years ago. The Territorials are to be the soleb base on which expansion will be undertaken in time of war. The Special Reserve battalions no longer exist as such, and the great experiment which Lord Kitchener carried out so successfully in 1914–15 is, we understand, not to be repeated. Service battalions will not be formed, and it is to the Territorials that we shall have to look for any expansion in future. During the War, the Territorial battalions were in most cases triplicated, and in a few cases quadruplicated, but, for the reasons I have mentioned, it is very obvious that if ever we have a world conflagration again, which we all hope may never happen, there must be a far greater expansion of the Territorial Force than was the case in 1914. Therefore, it is most important that the very small nucleus should, as far as possible, not only be kept up to strength but in the right spirit.
I am afraid that in the last few weeks the spirit has received a damper. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) stated the position as regards the Council of Territorial Associations, which includes the great majority of the Territorial Associations. I have been for nearly 20 years a member of the County of London Territorial Association which, for reasons it is not necessary to enter into now, has never been affiliated to the Council of Territorial Associations. The first direct official information conveyed to the County of London. Association in regard to the cut in the bounty was received through the War Office telegram
of 24th February, four days before the cut came into force. It is true that the Chairman of the County of London Association heard of the meeting on 9th February, at which the majority of the Associations were represented, and it is also true that he was asked to be a member of the sub-committee which sat after that date; but, leaving that on one side, as the County of London Territorial Association represents some 10 per cent. of the whole Territorial Army in the country, and as it has to administer between 30 and 40 different units, this action almost savours of discourtesy that, I am afraid, is the way in which it is regarded by my Territorial friends in question. It is obvious that in 10 days it is impossible to find out from the unit commanders for 30 or 40 different units what their views arc, and whether it is possible to put forward any alternative suggestion if money has to be saved.
6.0 p.m.
I may point out that the territorial grant, which is between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, is to be reduced by £332,000, which is between 8 and 9 per cent. That is a very serious cut indeed, and it is much more serious than the Territorial Army has ever suffered since 1918. Surely that is an extra reason for consulting in advance those responsible for the territorial organisation. I do hope that this somewhat unfortunate incident as regards the London Territorial Association may be borne in mind by those responsible for the territorial administration at the War Office. I am quite sure that the Territorials generally are much too good sports to be much affected by the changes in regard to the bounty, but I hope they will be given an opportunity of expressing their views and of putting forward alternative schemes. I think it is quite impossible, if you throw a bombshell among them in this way, to get that real spirit of co-operation which you ought to have if you wish to continue the good work done by Territorial Associations.
I was connected with the Territorials for many years before the War, and I know how difficult it was at that time to keep them up to strength. I do not need to speak of their services during the War because that is common knowledge, but I would like to mention the fact that the London Cycling Battalion had on its
colours "Afghanistan, 1919." When that corps was formed if anyone had said that the London Cycling Battalion would have ever fought in Afghanistan it would have been thought impossible. In the future the influence of the Territorials will be even more extended than it was in the Great War, and in this particular instance I am afraid the War Office has not been at all happy, and there is a feeling of resentment in regard to this bombshell. I agree that from the monetary point of view it might not be possible to give longer notice than was given, but I do think we ought not to give the impression of throwing things at the Territorial Army without them being consulted, and that is the impression which has been conveyed at the present time. With regard to its effect on recruiting, obviously it will be impossible to say, 'but in a good many cases if the commanding officers pay up the effect will not be anything like so much as many people fear. Before the War there was no county association, and as for the bounty, the members of the Territorial Force are too good sports to refuse to take on territorial service because of the abolition of the bounty of £3.
I would like to say a word or two upon a different topic. I was glad to hear the success mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the Y Cadets at Sandhurst, because to have seven successful out of the first 12 places is I think a noteworthy achievement. I welcome the decision of the War Office to extend this scheme to Woolwich and to the Royal Engineers, but I understand that there is no question of ante-dating those cadets who have joined the army in this way. It is obvious that they will he three or four years older than the ordinary public school boys who go through Sandhurst or Woolwich. It makes all the difference when they are in the late thirties. In the case of the infantry it matters less than in the cavalry, where they have regimental lists, and there is always a good deal of luck about three or four years later.
If this system applies to the Royal Artillery or the Royal Engineers, a man is bound to be hit in the late thirties unless there is a possibility of antedating. I hope the Secretary for War will consider whether it is not possible to specially strengthen the Y Cadets who get in at Woolwich in order to accelerate
promotion, otherwise you will merely have the same difficulty which applies to similar schemes in the Navy where petty officers found that even if they got on the quarter deck they got there too late for promotion. I know that only some 28 or 29 of these cases occur in a cavalry regiment, and the cases are so rare that the Y Cadets will be placed at some disadvantage unless a recommendation on the lines I have suggested is considered.

Lieut.-General Sir AYLMER HUNTERWESTON: There are two points which I wish to bring forward, and one of them is of general application. I wish to protest, in the first place, against the fact that the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Navy Estimates are being taken in their details separately before we have had an opportunity of discussing the whole problem of defence. I understood, when this question was brought forward by myself and other hon. Members in years past, that it was the intention of the Prime Minister that the Committee of Imperial defence Vote should be brought up before the detailed Estimates for the Services were presented, so that we might have a more logical method of dealing with 'defence services by considering first the whole and then the parts. As we have the good fortune to have on the Government Bench both the Secretary of State for War and the member of the Government particularly responsible for the administration of business, that is the Chief Whip, I hope they will bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the necessity of considering this matter in the future. It is obviously wrong that we should deal to illogically with so large a matter as that of defence. That is my general point.
My second point is with regard to the bounty. All who have the welfare of the Territorial Army at heart, and those who have had the good fortune of seeing the merit of the work of the Territorial Army from the Regular soldier's point of view as I have, must have the very highest opinion of the Territorials. We all fully realise that it is upon the Territorial Army this country must depend if ever we have again a trial of the country's strength, and the Regular Army must merely be the spear-point. Therefore, all those in the Regular Army have the good of the Territorial Army first in their thoughts, and they regret very much that
it has been found necessary to cut off the bounty. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will very favourably consider the suggestion that was put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has had an immense experience of the Territorial Army both before the War, during the War, and after the War, and who suggested that there ought to be proficiency pay for the Territorial Army.
There is no doubt that you are removing from the Territorials a great incentive to efficiency by cutting off the bounty, and for this reason I ask the Secretary of State for War to make some gesture that will be of real value as affecting the efficiency of the Territorial Army by introducing some form of grant as proficiency pay. If you do not have something of this kind you will find it extremely difficult for commanding officers and other officers to get their men to do all that is necessary, and it is essentially efficiency that is required. It may be that we shall be able to get efficiency and that the bounty will not hurt it, because we shall get the right type of man who is all out for the good of his country. But surely it is all the more necessary that we should have efficiency pay for these men who are willing to give the necessary time and trouble to get themselves into the condition in which they can render the best service to their country, and to themselves, in time of emergency.

Colonel ENGLAND: I wish to support the appeal which has just been made by the last speaker, and I appeal most strongly to the Secretary of State for War to consider the question of proficiency pay. I do not anticipate that the abolition of the county will prevent recruiting for the Territorial Army. It may have a bad effect for a certain period, but the right type of man will come along again. I maintain that some kind of efficiency pay should be considered, not only in recognition of the good work of the Territorials, but in the endeavour to maintain and retain the men in the Territorial Army. Speaking as one who has had some experience in regard to the Clothing Stores and Supply Committee, I have no hesitation in saying that there is a tendency for the men
at the end of three or four years' experience to leave the Force, with the result that we have thrown upon our hands a large supply of clothing which could be utilised if we could only persuade the men to remain longer in the Force.
When a man joins the Force he has issued to him two suits of uniform clothing, and sufficient clothing to last him for eight or 10 years, and in some cases for a period of 12 years. Under these circumstances, why allow a man to go at the end of four years if by a bounty or efficiency pay you can retain his services for a longer period? On those lines, I think it is worth while the Secretary of State for War considering the question of efficiency pay or of a bounty on re-engagement. I think the case put by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was rather weak when he stated that the Vice-Chairman of the County Associations knew what was going on in regard to the bounty for some period of time. I know that the Council of the County Associations very much resent the manner in which this bounty has been abolished. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will know their opinion on this point before long, but in case he should not, I would like to read to him a resolution which was passed by the Council, as follows:
This Council desires emphatically to impress upon the War Department that in their opinion any such momentous decision taken affecting the terms of service in the Territorial Army should not have been promulgated without prior reference to this Council, which is composed of the accredited representatives of the County Associations, who are by statute the official administrators of the Territorial Army.
I think that that resolution points out to the House that the Council of Territorial Associations certainly resents the manner in which this bounty has been abolished, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, for his non credit, for the credit of the Army Council, and for the benefit of the country, will seriously reconsider the question of a bounty on re-engagement or of granting efficiency pay.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: We have listened this afternoon to a rather determined attack upon the policy of the Government in regard to effecting economies in connection with the Territorial Army. That attack was led by a right hon. Gentleman who has held high
Government office. It was supported by an hon. Member who is a member of the Council of Territorial Associations, and has been backed up by two hon. Gentlemen who are also members of County Territorial Associations, so perhaps a few words from a commanding officer on the active list of the Territorial Army may not be altogether out of place. It is extraordinary how enthusiastic this House is on the subject of economies until those economies touch or affect an interest in which someone is vitally concerned. Listening this afternoon to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), I was irresistibly reminded of the old permanent official attitude in regard to economy "Yes, economise by all means., but, for God's sake, not in my Department."
What are these economies which are being effected at the expense of the Territorial Army? The whole economies on the Army Estimates this year are very nearly £1,000,000, and the estimated economies on the Territorial Army amount to £90,000, or rather less than 10 per cent. It seems to me, as a member of the Territorial Army, that that is not an unfair proportion to expect the Territorial Army to bear. The economies effected in the other Services have been loyally received by the Services concerned. No one has been put up to protest on behalf of the cavalry against the economies there. I do not say that anyone has been put up to protest on behalf of the Territorial Army, but it seems to me that the Resolution just read by the hon. and gallant Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Colonel England) was definitely inspired, because I remember the same thing being passed at the Territorial Association, of which I myself am a member. Of these economies, the vital one is, of course, the abolition of the bounty. The economies of £8,000 on the casualty clearing stations and the one or two veterinary departments that are being done away with will not affect the Force one iota in one direction or the other.
The abolition of the bounty may, and probably will, create a certain amount of discontent and disappointment, but economies have to be effected, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State for War had to choose between abolish-
ing the bounty and reducing the establishment of the infantry battalions; and, if I may say so, I honestly think the course which he has taken will do infinitely less harm than reducing the establishment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) spoke of the difficulties which we have all encountered in endeavouring to bring out units up to strength. Speaking personally, after three years of fairly determined effort, during which the strength of my unit has doubled itself, we are now approaching our normal establishment, and to stop recruiting at this particular moment, as we should have to do if our establishment were cut down to 500, would have the effect of turning recruiting off, so to speak, at the meter. We should have to stop it, and, once it is stopped, no one knows better than the Territorial commanding officer how difficult it is to get it going again. Therefore, I say that the better course has been adopted in abolishing the bounty rather than reducing the establishment.
What effect is this abolition of the bounty likely to have upon the Territorial Army? Personally, I do not think it will affect the numbers very largely. I am perfectly convinced, as far as, my unit is concerned, that we shall not lose a single man by it, although there may be a certain amount of grousing and criticism. I am aware that the disappointment in other units may possibly he greater. This bounty was in a great number of cases used by the man to bring his wife and family down to the seaside when he himself went to camp, so that they might, more or less, have a holiday together. The abolition of the bounty will, no doubt, cause a considerable amount of disappointment in that regard, but I do not believe that many men will leave the Territorial Army on account of the abolition of the bounty. In fact, I would go so far as to say, in regard to the man who will not re-join the Territorial Army, or who will not join the Territorial Army, because there is no bounty, that the Territorial Army is better without him.
In my opinion, it largely depends on the attitude of commanding officers whether this reduction is accepted in a loyal spirit or not. If the commanding officer and the other officers choose to go round pretending or complaining that
they have a grouse against the Government, no doubt it will have a very serious effect; but if, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) said,, they play the game and set an example amongst their men, pointing out to them individually that a man joins the Territorial Force to perform, with his pals, a patriotic national duty, and not for £2 10s, or £3, I think the effect of the abolition on that particular unit will be negligible. With regard to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth as to proficiency pay for the Territorial Army, or, if not proficiency pay, something to encourage men to do their work as efficiently as possible, of course I thoroughly agree with that. If the money is to be had, if it is forthcoming, no one will be better pleased to have it than I shall for the benefit of my unit. On the other hand, I think that in the majority of cases the competition between companies, the loyalty, the feeling that the honour and credit of the battalion are at stake, is sufficient to do all that is necessary, although I admit that, if the money is to be had, something in the direction of efficiency pay would be very acceptable. In conclusion, I can only say that, in my opinion, those hon. Members who have drawn such a pessimistic forecast of the effect of these reductions upon the Territorial Army are exaggerating; I do not think their pessimism is justified, and, in my opinion, the Territorial Army will go on just as well, in spite of those reductions, as it did before.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I, too, would like to say a few words with regard to the abolition of the bounty in the Territorial Army. The total sum spent on ills, Territorial Army is only about £3,500,000 a year. That is a very small sum indeed for a second-line defence in this country, and it is very important indeed that the strength of the battalions should be kept up. I should like to read to the House a view which has been given to me by a commanding officer who has commanded for 8½ years one of the best Territorial battalions in this country. I am afraid it does not quite agree with that of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. It is this:
I should like to say at once that I do not think that anything could have been
done to more effectively kill recruiting for the time being in the Territorial Army. This bounty has been one of the greatest attractions to the Territorial soldier. It has helped him to pay for a holiday for his wife"—
as my hon. and gallant Friend said—
which he generally arranges to take place at the time and place of his camp; or when, as in many cases, the whole of the bounty has been paid at the end of the year, it has been a most welcome sum to add to the comfort of the soldier and his family at Christmas time. Of the number of men eligible to re-engage in my battalion (approximately 140), I shall not get half, and I understand the same applies to the only other battalion I hive inquired about. I heard it said that the abolition of the bounty might later lead to a better class of man joining the Territorial Army. With this I entirely disagree. We never had a better type of men than we have now, and if the better class thought of being volunteer soldiers they could have done so years ago before there was any bounty.
That is a very definite expression of opinion from an officer commanding a Territorial battalion at the present time. I have resolutions passed by different associations in which they state in terms that they
view with grave apprehension and extreme disfavour the summary arid high-handed action of the War Office in discontinuing, without consultation with the newly appointed administrative authorities, the bounty to Territorial Army soldiers, in view of the fact that the Territorial Army is the main defence of the Kingdom in the event of war.
I think a great deal of this feeling is due to the haste with which this has been done, and the fact that Territorial commanding officers were not consulted. The commanding officer of a battalion told me he got a telegram from the War Office on Friday night, and the returns had to he in by the following Monday. Many of the men were away, and he could not get in touch with them, and the result was that there was no time for them to re-engage. I think the War Office have acted rather hastily in this matter. Lord Dartmouth the other day put it very well when he said:
Cuts are always painful; sympathetic discussion as to where the knife is to fall goes some way to 'temper the wind to the shorn lamb,' but it should not be forgotten that continual cuts at the wool of the Territorial lamb will, in time, destroy its vitality.
I think that that is rather what is happening to-day, and if the Secretary of State had only taken into consultation
the commanding officers, I am sure they could have arrived at some better or fairer solution than this. Could it not have been done, to use a cinema phrase, by slower motion? Could not the cut have been made 10s. from the bounty this year, and then 10s. in another year, without making it so extremely suddenly I Could not the blow have been softened and mitigated somewhat? It has come as a shock, as a surprise—a very unwelcome and unpleasant surprise—and I am afraid it is going very seriously to affect recruiting in the Territorial Army, which is, after all, a very cheap form of second-line defence for this country. It always seems to me that the Army, in one way or another, is selected for economies. What is the reason for that? The Army is forbidden to take part in politics; its voting power is negligible, and for that reason it always appears to the Government to be easy to cut down Army officers pay. I think that, if the Government had asked hon. Members of this House to have their salaries reduced by 6 per cent., as the officers' pay was, there would have been a, great protest, and they would not have dared to do it; but, because the Army is not allowed to take part in politics, the officers can say nothing, and their pay is reduced. We all welcome economy, but why should not the Secretary of State say at the same time, "If I have to make economies in the Army, let other Departments make economies too. Let there be economies everywhere, and not only in my Department." One remembers Kipling's lines:
It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and chuck him out, the brute;
But it's the saviour of his country when the guns begin to shoot.
We are in a time of peace now, and the Army is looked upon as a fit matter for reduction, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has said. I hope that he will consider the question of having a reduction by slower degrees, that he will reconsider the matter, which is one of real and vital importance in the opinion of Commanding Officers of Territorial battalions, that he will consult them before he carries out this recommendation, and that he will reconsider the question of the abolition of the bounty. I beg him to do so.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to express my surprise at the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) opened his speech. He said there had been a determined attack on the Secretary of State for War. I thought my right hon. Friend was receiving support from almost every quarter of the House. I thought the last speech was the only one at all events which had any sting in it at all. I object to these Estimates almost from start to finish. The right hon. Gentleman has been congratulated because he shows a reduction in the figures. I object to them for that reason. I think it is time we stopped always expecting a reduction of the Army. The present Secretary of State not only reduces the money but reduces the number of fighting men. These Estimates, although they show a nominal increase due to China, really; as he carefully explains in his Memorandum, would have shown a decrease of 4,000 men. Most of those were cavalry or gunners or infantry, and were therefore fighting men. If we are going to have an Army at all surely it had better be composed of fighting men and not of motor mechanics and others behind the line. I wish to draw attention to the cost. We are always getting the cost reduced and the Secretary of State says, "I must reduce the cavalry, I must reduce the Territorial Army. The wicked Chancellor of the Exchequer ordered me to." Why does he not do what apparently the other Ministers do? You have your Civil Service Estimates up by nearly £5,000,000. Some other Ministers apparently refused to cut their Estimates down. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman do the same for his Department? It is becoming a serious matter. Before the War the cost of our Army was an eighth of our national income. To-day it is down to a twentieth—a very considerable difference, seeing that this is an Army not for offence but purely for the defence of the Empire. Continual change causes the maximum amount of uncertainty amongst all ranks. We are continually from year to year hearing of reductions. We see further little driblets going in every Estimate. The result is that every battalion and regimental commander begins to wonder what is going to happen to him next. He hears
expressions like "This will be put off for the time being." He waits for next year and wonders. Men, are not really going to he efficient if they are expecting next year to have their regiments taken away from them or to have some alteration in their status. A former Secretary of State, Lord Derby, very wisely indeed said the motto of the Army was stability. I am certain the Army with that motto worked much more efficiently than it is doing at present.
Now to come from the general to the particular. I am an old cavalry soldier and therefore I view with great suspicion these proposals to do away with one squadron in every regiment and mechanise the first line of transport and part of its armament. I think the Secretary of State seems to forget what cavalry is. It is not a collection of men marching with motor cars pushed here and there. A cavalry man is a man and his horse combined together with a very nasty bit of steel which he has in his hand, and if you get in the way he will stick you with it. There is not the slightest doubt that if there were no wire—which is the only defence against cavalry—they can gallop machine-guns, they can gallop almost every situation if they are well led and are able to use their steel weapons, but to muddle them up by putting some on motor cars and some on horses is making a very great mistake indeed. It would be far better to make up your mind to have none of them if they are not wanted and do away with the lot. To keep them half and half as they are at present is, to my mind, a very grave mistake indeed.
I come now to the bounty on the Territorial Army. I speak also as a commanding officer of a Territorial regiment. I do not think for a moment that the withdrawal of the bounty will affect the number of men in my regiment—I shall get them just the same—but it is going to affect their efficiency and their military value, and I am certain that from the officers' point of view it is very much to be deplored. This bounty is mainly given for efficiency. You must pass a certain standard in musketry, you must do your annual training and you must attend a certain number of drills in order to get the bounty, and it is always something you can hold over a man to compel him to go to camp. There is
also an element of very real hardship in it, because the men like at the end of camp to get their £3 to make up something of their actual expenses during the camp and many of them, particularly those under 26 who are married and do not draw marriage allowance, probably cannot afford to go to camp with their wives running their home unless they get the bounty. Every Territorial commanding officer will tell you that it will very much affect the efficiency of his men.
The next question is, why was this brought about in such a manner? It was done at four days' notice. I can only give the effect as far as one battalion is concerned of the short notice. This battalion sent out, as soon as they got the order, 75 notices for re-engagements and got nine acceptances. That leaves 64 men who probably wanted to rejoin but were not able to do it, and if they do later they will forfeit the bounty. You are probably going to get 64 people much disgruntled and they will not think they have had a fair do.
I want to deal with the question of the Secretary of State and the Council of Territorial Associations. I wonder why he was so overbearing with them. Generally I complain of the attitude of the War Office in regard to economy in the Territorial Army. Last April, knowing that we were to be cut £160,000 in one year, some of us put our heads together and thought we would try and examine Territorial finance. We searched over the return to see what actual items cost. As a matter of fact you cannot go through the whole of the Army now and say there will be so much for clothes, so much for boots, so much for horses. You have to get these details from each County Association account and add them up separately. The Secretary of a Territorial Force Association wrote a letter on the subject. I thought I would forward it on, because he was an official person and it would show that it was not really an irresponsible busybody. The sort of reply I got from the War Office was rather instructive, because I was told the War Office was already supplied with information so as to administer the Territorial Army and did not as a matter of fact ask Secretaries of Territorial Associations for their advice in securing economy. If advice was required the
War Office would consult the Central Council of Territorial Associations in the usual way. That is all very nice. When I want to make some inquiry they put me off by saying they have all the information and will consult the proper people, who are the Council of the Territorial Association, but in practice, they decide on some economies. They do not consult the Territorial Council Association, but they issue orders to them as to what is to be done and just expect them to be carried out. I am certain all the Territorial Associations are indignant, and I think rightly so. I hope wiser counsels will yet prevail and if the Secretary of State would only take the Territorials more into his confidence, if he talks things over with them a little more I am certain they would respond and he would get a good response. If he is going to issue orders like a great high War Lord he will not get any sort of value out of the Territorial Army, but will put their backs up and enormous damage will be done to this movement throughout the country.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the extraordinarily short speech in which he presented the Estimates. It was concise and he told us exactly what we wanted to know. I recommend to the attention of the Government what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and Ayrshire (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) said, that we really want to have some debate on the three Services together. That is the real essence of economy. It can only be carried out through some form of defence service, and therefore I hope at an early date we shall have a chance of debating this subject. As regards the Territorial Army bounty, which has excited so much attention in the Press, the only criticism. I have to make is the fact that the War Office have thought fit to spring it on the Territorials, especially the unit commanders, in such a sudden way. I can see perfectly well that it was done from the point of view of economy. They were afraid that fewer re-engagements would be carried out if the men had sufficient notice of this. All the same it has created an atmosphere of suspicion in the minds of various unit commanders, and I have had expressions of opinion from them. I can only hope the War Office
will do something to alleviate their distress. Perhaps something might be done as regards the Territorial Associations. How far is it necessary for Votes of money to go through the Territorial Associations to the units? Could not the money go direct to the units instead of going through the Associations? At any rate, the larger units might be allowed to spend their block grants under the same system as the training grants; they would get better value, and the War Office would get better service than in doing it through the Associations. I know that the Territorial Associations have great value in time of war, but surely we could have something in existence which could be brought into action when a war comes along, and thereby save expense.
The cavalry reorganisation is surprising. It may be difficult to join together the mechanical side with the horse side. Would it not be batter to have separate mechanical units acting with the cavalry rather than incorporate a large number of mechanical vehicles into a cavalry regiment? At the same time, I think a good deal might be done in re-organisation of the cavalry service. All that has been done now is to lop off a squadron from each of the home regiments. It would have been better if the cavalry service had been tackled as a whole and re-organised on the lines suggested as far back as 1919. In other countries they have gone on the basis of a squadron per regiment, drawing together the three squadrons under one commander, and that unit then forms a regiment for peace time and can be expanded into a brigade for war. If we would treat our cavalry somewhat on those lines, we might possibly get an organisation which would be more simple, and possibly we might get greater value from the mobilisation point of view.
I should like to refer to the unfair weight that is placed on the Army Estimates by the cost of garrison and fortress men. We are holding a long line of coasts. I notice that there is something in the Vote for Singapore, where soldiers are doing work which has nothing to do with the Army. They are keeping bases far the Navy and in many cases for the Air Force and it seems to me that some part of that cost ought to be borne by the Votes of other arms. In the old days we often complained of the excessive cost
of keeping these people tied in the various fortresses, which was not altogether fair to the Army Vote. Another point of interest is the question of training soldiers who are about to leave the Army. We all know how hard it is for soldiers who have come to the end of their service to get employment on leaving the Army. In recent years we have done something towards training these men for civil occupations. How far is it possible to get the trade unions to accept these men after a trade test, or possibly by the War Office paying an allocation of their money during their service to the trade unions, thereby keeping them on the books of the various trade unions so that when they have left the Service, and have had additional facilities for bringing themselves up-to-date, in civilian work in the last year of their Army service, they would be able to be accepted by the trade unions on leaving the Army. The point is that they must give their contributions during the years of Army service, and possibly the War Office might see fit to pay the contributions in order to give a livelihood to these men when they leave the Service.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In many trade unions to-day, while soldiers are on Army service, their membership is maintained, and on leaving the Army they re-enter the union without any further contribution.

Mr. WALLHEAD: In view of that statement, perhaps the Tory party will think that the Labour party is patriotic.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I heard the point raised by a Committee which sat in 1919, and it was suggested that if the contributions were paid these men might remain in the trade unions and so come back after their service in the Army. The next point is that of reorganisation inside the War Office. We have heard of certain reorganisations, and I looked forward anxiously to hearing something about it in my right hon. Friend's speech. Undoubtedly, inside the War Office a good deal of reorganisation could be carried out with advantage. I do not know how far a Committee is at work dealing with this matter. I do not know whether the duties of the M.G.O., and the Quartermaster-General are rightly and properly defined, and
whether the work of the Military Secretary and the Adjutant-General's work is properly defined, or how far the ordinary duties of co-ordinating the work of the Army in the Army Council is well-balanced and up-to-date. I should be very glad to hear if any activities are going on in that direction. I am delighted to hear that the Selection Committee is to be reorganised; it has been very long wanted. As regards the Supply Service, I think a great deal could be done by co-ordinating supply—I have called attention to this matter three or four times—for each of the Services, including the Civil Service and the Post Office. There seems to be a good deal of overlapping in buying and in keeping reserve stores for each of the Services. I think that in contracts and buying generally we could secure economy if we have a combined Supply Service.
I think there is a danger ahead in regard to the mechanisation of the Army. We are now getting on to a very expensive form of transport and haulage which has a very rapid deterioration and which is lying more or less useless during the years of peace. I wonder whether it would be possible to adapt in some way these vehicles for peace work and earmarking them for war; that is, during their work in the commercial world for the first year or two they should be by means of subsidy earmarked for use during war. We might do that in regard to many mechanical vehicles. I do not know whether tractor vehicles, cross-country vehicles, etc., could be used during peace and yet be subsidised to be called out for war, and whether by that we could get some return for the time during which they are depreciating. Undoubtedly, this will affect the Army Estimates very considerably in the future. There is one point to be remembered in regard to the mechanisation of the Army, and that is that armies abroad and our own Army will be engaged devising all kinds of anti-mechanical guns for destroying the mechanical vehicles of our Army Service. Undoubtedly, in the next war we shall have to meet very much more strenuous opposition to our mechanical vehicles than has been the case before. Therefore, very careful research and investigation should be undertaken before we develop at any very rapid rate the complete mechanisation of the Army. I am glad
that my right hon. Friend has thought fit to collect the brigade at Tidworth and experiment with them, in order to see the possibilities. That ought to be of great advantage to the Army and to our expenditure.
Another question is the grant of money to the larger units. In the days of that great financier Sir Charles Harris, we often heard about the hard and fast defining of Votes by Regulation, which meant that money could be spent only inside small compartments and could not be transferred from one Vote to another. I do not know how far money might be usefully allotted to the units" the larger units, if you like, and allowing them to spend it in the same way that they spend the training grant, so that they could use the Vote as they found necessary for the benefit of their unit. They could either improve their training or improve their buildings. Nowadays we often find in the engineering service that if buildings are required to be improved there is no money available, because the block of money has been spent. Under a different arrangement we might get better value, and at the same time we could accustom commanders to handle money and put them in a better position usefully to handle money in peace time, just as they have to do in war time. I hope that some movement in that direction will take place in the near future.
There is a sum of money in the War Office, a large part of which unfortunately, the Government took last year by the Economy Bill, which might be used for dealing with hard cases, not only eases which are insured, but many hard cases of non-commissioned officers and men who do not come inside the pension system. There is no fund that can relieve them. If some of the money to which have referred could be utilised in helping many of these cases—I have in mind several which I could bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman—it would be a great advantage, and it would also show that the taking of the money in the Economy Bill has not reduced the chances of these poor people getting some help from a source which is the only source from which there is any possibility of their getting help.

7.0 p.m.

Sir BASIL PUNO: Those who have participated so far in the Debate have been almost exclusively ex-officers in the
Regular Army or officers commanding Territorial battalions. On the question of the abolition of the Territorial bounty, it is not inappropriate that someone should speak from the point of view of the ordinary civilian, who is a taxpayer and stands in a dual capacity. He has to find the money and he is represented in the Press as a person very eager for economy in public expenditure at almost all costs and almost in any direction. He is also a person who in the aggregate has an enormous interest in the question of our defence forces, because he is the person whom the defence forces are designed to defend. The Territorial Force is the embodied line of defence behind the Regular Army, and consists of a number of men who with very little additional training would be fit to go overseas, as they are now under obligation to do, within a very few weeks of the outbreak of any future war. That number of men is in excess of the number which I find in the Estimates as the establishment of the Regular Army. The number of men in Vote A is 154,500, not allowing for the 7,000 temporary additions due to the trouble in China, and the number on the establishment of the Territorial Army is 181,875, or, if you take the actual strength on the 1st January, it is 148,331, which is a number practically equal to the whole of the Regular Army. It costs, however, only just over £5,000,000, whereas the Army Estimates are £41,565,000. Therefore, for one-eighth of the expenditure, we pay for the whole of this second line force. I think that is about the very last place where the ordinary civilian in the street would expect to find further economies to be made, when we realise that this £3 or £2 10s. in the case of recruits is the only recognition which is paid, other than the actual pay during the training, and represents all the time that is given, in attending drills and rifle ranges and in becoming a proficient soldier, by all these numbers of very poor people, who are not only among the poorest people in the country but undoubtedly the most patriotic people in the country.
Therefore, I think this economy is rather a miserable policy. We have been told by various Members that it will affect recruiting, and by some, like the hon. and gallant Member for North-
West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward), who is in contact, probably, with a much better-off class of recruits than the average Territorial unit, that it will not affect recruiting. I am told by more than one officer commanding Territorial battalions that it will seriously affect recruiting, and it has been expressed to me as strongly as being a knock-out blow. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that commanding officers ought to advertise the attractions of the service. The attractions of the service are conscientiousness of doing your duty and of doing something for your country, for which apparently your country is not going to make you any payment except during a fortnight in the year. Therefore, it is difficult to see what the attractions are which are to be especially advertised.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that this was not really a cut, and that he was going to give it all back to the Territorial Army in the form of equipment and ammunition. I want to consider that argument for a moment purely from the point of view of the taxpayer. Since the War there have been large reserves of stores and ammunition which it has been able to draw upon, so that the Territorial Army has been able to fire away the amount of ammunition which was necessary, or something near it, and to be clothed, for no immediate expenditure which has to be provided for by the country. Now the right hon. Gentleman says: "It is going to cost us something to do this in future. Therefore, we must have an economy, but we are going to give it back in the form of ammunition and clothing and so on, which costs the country nothing at the present time." Putting those two statements together, what does it really amount to? What it really seems to mean is that as soon as the ammunition and clothing costs anything we are going to ask the territorial soldiers to provide it out of the bounties which they have hitherto been paid, and which is the only recognition given to men who come to the Territorial Army. Looking at it from that point of view, it is a very miserable form of economy, because clearly the Territorial Army is to be made to pay for their own ammunition.
I think there are other ways, looking at it from the point of view of the tax-
payer, in which the right hon. Gentleman should rather have sought economies than at the expense of people who are already giving a great deal of their time—time which they can ill afford—to the service of their country and with no recognition worth speaking of. I think there are many Ministries which could be spared, and that in those directions we could have dispensed with a great many people who are in receipt of very large salaries indeed, without any loss of efficiency. It would not be in order to go into details as to the Ministries which could be spared, but I think all Members are conscious that there are many which we all hope are very much on their last legs.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is in a tight position, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that a cut has got to be made, and the right, hon. Gentleman says, "Well, if we have to save a million, the Territorial Army must give up something. How much do we spend on the Territorial Army? It is about one-eighth of our Army expenditure, and therefore we ought to save about one-eighth on that or, if we treat it very lightly, perhaps one-tenth would do." I do not think that argument, or any argument on those lines, holds water for a moment, because, as I have pointed out, this is a force which is equal to or greater in numbers than, and is as vital to us as, the first line defence force of the country. Therefore, if you get them for one-eighth of the expenditure, they are a force on which you ought not to try and cheese-pare and cut down any further.

Major GLYN: The whole of the discussion to-day has turned on the point of the Territorials, not so much on what is going to be done or is not going to be done, as on the question of psychology. Has the Secretary of State studied their wishes and done what he can to help them to assist him in affecting these economies? I am not competent to say what the effect of the abolition of the bounties will be, but as a supporter of the Government I think we all recognise that Lord Haldane was the man who created the Territorial Army, and I trust it will never be detrimentally affected by any act of this Government.
I know the present Secretary of State recognises the value of the Territorial Army and would never want to do any-
thing which would check it, but I do believe, from what I have heard in my own constituency, that there is a feeling prevailing that the Territorials theme selves are not taken properly into account, as they might be, and their views considered, as to the economies which are absolutely essential. I believe also that everyone in this House who served in the War with Territorial units, as I had the honour of doing, recognises that the General Officers Commanding the Territorial Divisions throughout the War have done splendid work in building up the Territorial Army since the Armistice. All that admirable work should not be wrecked by politicians, and I feel very strongly that the Regular soldiers and adjutants of these units ought to be consulted before Parliament perpetrates some action which may sweep aside all the fine work which they have done. They ask for no praise, they get very little in the way of laurels, and they do not get very much in the way of pay. They work day in and day out and they do not leave their commands. They are only too glad to do it, and I think it is our business to back them up as fully as we can.
There is another thing. It is not for us in the House of Commons to be experts as to whether the Army should be mechanised or not, or whether a squadron should be removed or not. It is the business of the Army Council and the soldiers who advise the Government. Whether all the economies which are proposed have been effected or not, there is one little point which it might be useful to scrutinise again. I notice in the Estimates that the expenses of seven hospitals is not less than £1,112,000. That seems to me to be rather a large amount of money for the number of beds which are equipped, and we all know the need for economy and for close interworking between one service and another. The Estimates Committee went very fully into this matter, and one of the recommendations was that there should be a closer liaison between the services as regards possible treatment. That is being carried out, and I have no doubt that great economies have been effected, but if you work out the cost per bed it seems to me that £1,112,000, exclusive of salaries, is a very high figure, and it seems to me that the Territorials ought not to have had their bounty cut had
there been a greater reduction in that direction.
I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the question of Catterick and its relationship with Canada especially. I had the opportunity of being in Canada last year, and there I met some men who had been at Catterick. There were some 30 or 40 who had gone out under the Group Settlement Scheme and Family Scheme, and they had settled down arid done extremely well. I think we ought all to recognise that it was due to the party opposite, the Opposition, when they were in office, that the Catterick scheme and other schemes had their chance. They backed it up and especially the late Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Lawson), and the result of the training there has a most tremendous effect on migration officials in Canada. There is one little point that has not been touched on, and I hope the Secretary of State will give it his personal attention. There are units in Canada who are anxious to be put in touch with Catterick and other training centres here. These units of the militia forces in Canada are anxious to link up with men here and help them if they come out to Canada and settle either on the land or any other way. I am sure that if an attempt were made a very close association could he established between the different regiments and centres here and an organisation in Canada through which help would be most willingly given to place these men when they have received their training.
We ought not to be satisfied with such a small number of men going overseas out of the 28,000 who leave the Army every year. I do hope that we shall increase the number of these vocational training and testing stations and bring more men over from Canada and Australia to give instruction in these stations, and that a regular campaign will be started to test men's mentality and see whether they will be useful on the land or not. It is not the slightest use training a man for the land if he has not the mentality to settle on the land. He merely drifts into the towns and big centres in the Dominions and complicates their problem further. If you increase these training stations and have a greater interchange of people from Canada to come over here and give
assistance both in regard to the handling of machinery and teaching the types of harvesters, it will give the scheme a great impetus. What is more, it is essential to my mind to emphasise the fact that the Dominions are not necessarily seeking for trained agriculturists in this country. They need men who find it difficult to get a job and who, after having had sufficient training, are just as efficient on the land in Canada and Australia as agricultural workers would be in this country. Therefore, it is from the point of view of agriculture here that we should increase the number of these vocational training centres, not only in Catterick but in Hounslow and Aldershot. Why should we not have them in Malta and Gibraltar, where time hangs very heavily on the men's hands, and there seems to be a great opportunity of training men before they leave the Army?
The last point I wish to make is this—I see the Prime Minister is at the moment in his place—I want to add my word to what has been said in regard to the promise we had, or thought we had, that before the Estimates for the separate Services were introduced, there should be a general discussion on the question of the Committee of Imperinal Defence. In answer to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) the reply was that there was no time for such a discussion. Those of us who want to see real economies effected believe that the best way of doing it is to have the question of Imperial defence debated as a whole. When Sir Henry Wilson was a Member of this House, I remember him making a speech from the bench below the Gangway. Speaking as a soldier he said that the House of Commons wanted really to know what the policy of the Government was, because policy determines everything, and after the policy had been decided, then it was for the soldiers and sailors to carry it out. Until we get another voice like his, drawing the attention of the public to the real problem of defence, we shall not get real economy or real efficiency. I hope on another occasion that time will be found for a discussion on defence as a whole, before the Estimates for the Services are considered.

Viscount SANDON: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the most interesting memorandum which accompanies the Estimate, because by its aid one is able without a careful study of the long category of figures to understand the Estimate. When I saw this note I felt that we had made a beginning towards definite progress, almost a revolution, in the policy of the Army. I am very glad to see that some progress is being made towards the mechanising of the Army, although I am not very well satisfied with that word. This is one of the experiences we learned during the late War, and it needs pursuing with all the initiative and push and drive that this House can encourage. In common with most other hon. Members, I am very much perturbed indeed as to what has happened over the Territorial Army. I am not so much alarmed by the actual figures as by the spirit which has been brought to light. There was a letter in the Press from Lord Dartmouth, whose name has been associated with the Territorial movement since Lord Haldane first started that Force; and I believe Lord Dartmouth deals with the crux of the whole matter. It is a question whether the atmosphere is right, whether the people in the Territorial Associations feel that they are in a sympathetic or a cold atmosphere when they are dealing with the military authorities at the War Office.
We shall never get this on a satisfactory basis until we have the head of the Territorial Army as a representative on the Army Council. I know this question has been raised times out of number, and perhaps I look at it from a rather different angle compared with other hon. Members. I do not think he should be there on sufferance. I believe he should be the most important man there. In the days before the War we had Lord Roberts's campaign, and I believe there is a great deal in that policy which has an application to-day. I think we should have that most democratic development of the fighting forces of this country—a citizen army, and I believe if Lord Roberts were alive to-day with the National Service League, we should have it far more generally recognised. I am not suggesting, and I should be the last person to suggest it, a colossal or an increased expenditure on
armaments, but I believe the justification of armaments is the spirit of self-defence, and the spirit of self-defence is brought into play by universal sacrifice. We shall not give any offence to any other country, and we shall be doing what is right to posterity if we take away some of the money which is now spent on the Regular Army and devote it to the needs of the Territorial Army. I recognise that a standing Army is necessary for garrisons overseas, and you must have a certain nucleus in this country; but I believe the Territorial Army should be the nucleus for the Expeditionary Force, and that a certain portion of the Territorial Army should be perpetually in training, so that they may form, the nucleus for any Expeditionary Force, should we unhappily have to send one abroad again. I know that to secure freedom from their civil duties in order to put in the necessary training at what might be very inconvenient times would entail extra expenditure, but I would take that extra expenditure from the money that is spent on the existing Regular Army, and devote it to the requirements of the Territorial Army.
I hope also that the question of research will not be lost sight of, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman is alive to it. In an Army, as in any other walk of life, research is all important. We must not stint money in this connection. The cap and gown staff should be the most important part of the Forces. The greatest asset in the next war will be the results of scientific research, and it is important that the best that scientific enterprise can produce should be at the command of the British Army at any time. This country will never fight another war which is not a question of life and death. The whole nation will be in it from beginning to end, and science will play a very important part in that conflict. I want to emphasise most strongly what was said many times last year, and I hope will be said many times this year, and has been said to-night, that we shall never do any good until we get the question of a Ministry of Defence thoroughly thrashed out, not only from the point of view of economy, but from the point of view of high policy. In the Estimates, defence must be treated as a whole, for it is one question and not three, and you can no more separate the
Army, Navy and Air Force for discussion than you can consider independently, say, the infantry, artillery and tanks in the Army. I am satisfied that a Ministry of Defence will never come from Whitehall. It will only come from this House, and I hope this House will put pressure on the Prime Minister and those that advise him so that we shall really get this question looked at not as by the official mind but from the point of view of high policy, and the defence of this country as a whole.

Lord APSLEY: Like other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on having effected these reductions without doing considerable harm to the Army—I am afraid I cannot say that he has not done any harm at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows too well that you cannot cut without hurting, however powerful the local anæsthetic you may apply to the wound. In trying to analyse the harm that has been done, I think, so far as the Territorial Army is concerned, that it is almost entirely moral, if any harm at all has been done. There is a feeling in the Territorial Army to-day that they are not being sufficiently looked after by the War Office, that they are not cared for by the Regular Army. That is apt to happen in a volunteer and citizen force. Such a feeling can arise and can be quietened again, but the Government must consider it. If the Territorial Associations were taken into consultation it is possible that a solution might be arrived at. A solution might be found in this way; if the Territorial Army was dealt with more directly by the War Office—even if that meant doing away with the Territorial Associations altogether—as part of the regular Forces. That would give the ordinary rank and file of the Territorial Army, the young officers, a feeling that they were the children of the War Office, that they were not regarded as amateurs playing at soldiering.
As regards the Regular Army, I think a certain amount of harm has been done, not only moral but actual. The moral harm is that young officers, and particularly the rank and file, are again experiencing that feeling of hopelessness that any day their unit may be disbanded or reduced to conditions of impotency. There is this suspicion arising in the
Regular Army, and it takes away all the initiative and enterprise from any young officer. That feeling, I am afraid, is rising with every reduction of units or establishment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a definite assurance that we have at last reached rock bottom in the cuts in the Regular Army. The feeling, in the country is very strong on this subject, because the situation abroad is not so secure that we can afford to make any more cuts in the Regular Army, and that the Services, especially the Army, are doing their level best to cut down their expenditure while other Ministries are not. I have in my hand a list of the other Ministries and their extra expenditure, and there is a feeling in the War Office and the Navy particularly that they are being made to find the money for other Ministries to spend. I should like to lay stress on this point; that to my mind it is a cut in establishment that does more damage to the unit and to the Army than a complete wiping out of units. If you cut a unit down to such an extent that on parade the young officer goes out with a platoon of 20 men it does him and his non-commissioned officers and the men an enormous amount of harm. They cannot get on with their work. It takes all the initiative and pride out of them.
Particularly is that the case with the cavalry, and in reducing the cavalry to two squadrons—I have no fault to find with that—I wish the right lion. Gentleman would consider the possibility of raising the establishment and give them a few more men. I believe a squadron should have 150 men, four troops, 30 other ranks, and a Hotchkiss gun troop as well. If you have a squadron of that number you could do something with it. On active service we found that squadrons of about 80 men were soon whittled down to 60, and finally we had practically nothing to use at all. I also want to raise the question of the extra machine guns which are to be given to cavalry regiments. During the War in Palestine the machine gun was not a very useful cavalry weapon and the automatic rifle practically took its place. The machine gun was difficult to get into action and difficult to get out of it. In mounted warfare things move very quickly, generally over very rough and difficult ground. You have to get fire
power into action and out of action very quickly. The machine gun can be easily spotted by the enemy. There is no time to dig in and the machine gun in open ground is easily located. It is much more difficult to locate an automatic rifle. Among the machine guns we had considerable casualties which had to be replaced. That, however, is a matter more for the War Office than for this House to consider.
The mechanisation of the first line transport has been mentioned by two hon. Members, who thought that it was a mistake. I am not an old cavalry officer, but I know that anything that takes weight off a horse's back is a blessing. One trouble in the late War was that the British cavalry horses were expected to carry about. 20 stone. The Australian cavalry were more fortunate in that respect and their horses benefited thereby. The Australians also had squadrons of considerably over 100 men. That is one of the reasons, why the Australian cavalry was so astonishingly successful in a very difficult situation. I hope that the Secretary of War, when he comes to reply, will give us the assurances asked for, particularly on the question whether we have reached rock bottom in the "cuts" on the Army. Such a reassurance would help the moral of the Army, which is inclined to sink at the moment.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the interests of both peace and economy and in order to inspire national confidence and security other than by large standing armies, His Majesty's Government should, in the preparatory commission for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, initiate proposals to secure international agreement on reductions in land forces.
Thus far this Debate has been conducted on the assumption that the question of the land forces of the Crown is primarily a national question. There has been also an assumption running through the Debate that there was some urgent and insistent need for preparations against war, and an undercurrent of feeling amongst many hon. Members opposite that the expenditure on the Army ought to he increased. The object of the Motion
which I move is that in the interests of peace and economy, the Government should take the initiative in submitting definite and concrete proposals to the preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference for the reduction of land forces by international agreement, as part of a comprehensive policy of progressive disarmament. A fortnight from now the preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference will be meeting. The work that has already been done by that Commission proves beyond a shadow of doubt that technically and politically a drastic limitation of armaments, including land armaments, is practicable. It now depends solely upon the sincerity of the nations at that Conference whether the Disarmament. Conference proceeds far along the road to disarmament or not; whether, indeed, the nations of the world are prepared, in spite of all that has happened since the War in the direction of warlike preparations, to fulfil their own obligations under the Treaty of Peace. In this connection a very heavy responsibility rests upon His Majesty's Government. I want to take as, my starting point some words spoken by the Prime Minister a little over a year ago in circumstances more congenial than the House of Commons—he was speaking at the meeting of the Classical Association. A question which he asked in that speech was as follows:
Who in Europe does not know that one more war in the West and the civilisation of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome?
My second starting point is that the economic burdens of armies and all that armies imply are intolerable in the existing state of the world and of this country. As regards the Prime Minister's own question, if the nations of the world will not destroy, as far as is humanly possible, the probability of war, the land forces—and, of course, other forces which I cannot mention in this Debate—should be so restricted that they will not imperil the existence of civilisation; in other words, that war should not be conducted on the colossal scale of the past War—indeed, the next war will be conducted on a larger scale —but should at least be confined within limits which at the end will leave the fabric of civilisation intact. As regards the second point, that of economy, we
claim that expenditure on the land forces should be reduced to the minimum essential for what might be called police service. Any expenditure above that level is unproductive expenditure and a burden on the community. Sir Josiah Stamp, I understand, has said that the abolition of armaments throughout the world would mean an increase of 10 per cent. in the standard of life of the peoples of the world. The reduction and the ultimate abolition of land armaments for war purposes, as distinct from police purposes, would make a very substantial contribution to that end. So far from wishing to transfer expenditure from unnamed Ministries mentioned by hon. Members opposite to the War Office, I would like to see a substantial limitation of expenditure by the War Office.
There is, in all armies, a quite unnecessary amount of display, because the military mind runs to display. I do not believe the dignity of this nation rests in any way upon bearskins or breastplates or red tabs or brass-hats. Indeed, I would say that the soberly uniformed and good humoured policeman is far more representative of the people of this country than the young subaltern tricked out in the uniform of a crack regiment. All the display which, in the past, seems to have been inevitably associated with armies is not necessary in any country, and least of all in this country. But that is, on the whole, a relatively small point. What we suggest is a definite reduction in the personnel of the Army. I am aware that since the War there has been a substantial reduction in personnel, but with the Great War behind us, with the de-militarisation of Germany, with the Locarno Treaty negotiated—it was to he the first step to disarmament—with no real military menace in the world, what is the reason for the enormous expenditure on land forces in this and other countries? It is partly because of tradition, and tradition with no justification for its continuance. It is partly due to undefined fears. It is very largely due to the abnormalities of the military mind. There is very little substantial foundation for an increase in armies either here or in other countries.
What is even more important than a reduction of personnel, is the change that has taken place in the direction of
mechanisation. Man has become very largely superseded by man-directed machines. Warfare, like productive processes, has become industrialised, and it is becoming increasingly industrialised. The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of carrying further the mechanisation of the Army. I suggest that unless a halt is called to developments in that direction the economic system in this and other countries will be crushed under the sheer weight of military metal due to mechanisation. It is, therefore, as important to limit armaments and equipment as to limit the personnel of the Army. Limitation of that kind is perfectly practicable. The Treaty of Versailles did actually prohibit the possession by Germany of tanks of all kinds, and of guns of larger calibre than 105 millimetres or four-inches, except for fortresses and fortified works. If a definite limitation of the scale of armaments for the land forces is practicable in the case of Germany, clearly the principle is of much wider application.
Let me refer for a moment to the question of tanks. As a practical form of equipment, tanks were the product of the Great War. From being a freak weapon the tank has become an extraordinarily important one, a weapon the importance of which is increasing day by day in the eyes of the General Staffs of the world. I understand that there are no technical difficulties in the way of an almost unlimited increase in the size of the tank, in its power, in the guns that it carries, and, of course, in the enormous expenditure that will be involved. It is perfectly clear what is happening to-day. Just as the old "wooden walls" gave way to the modern battleship, so the small tank of the Great War is to give way in course of time to a new land super-Dreadnought, and there will be the same old foolish competition bet seen the nations, a competition in tank development on exactly similar lines to the great developments in naval armaments that took place before the War. If it be right and just to prohibit Germany from using tanks, there is also a case, for, at least, limiting expenditure on this new form of War. Take the case of artillery. There has been and there is
to-day international rivalry with a view to increasing the range and power of artillery. Nobody pretends that guns to-day have reached the limit of their development. I suppose there are people to-day who are dreaming of a gun with a range of 100 miles. Some day, no doubt, in the absence of a limitation of development in that direction, such a gun will be produced. The next stage will be that men of ability and knowledge will bend their minds to the production of a gun capable of firing 110 miles. If the 4-inch gun as a maximum be right and reasonable for Germany, what is the ease for 14-inch guns and even larger guns for any other Power which cares to buy them? The competition in long range artillery is going to involve this country, whether we want it or nut, in increasing expenditure and a halt should be called to the development of the scale on which artillery can be made.
There are, therefore, two separate problems. One is the limitation of land forces, to be carried out by limiting man power, equipment and expenditure—and I think to be effective you would have to limit all three—and the second is a limitation on the developments which have taken place in different forms of armaments. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the world is prepared to accept, if not a similar degree of disarmament, a comparable degree of disarmament to that imposed by the Powers on Germany under the Treaty of Peace. The restrictions placed on Germany by the Peace Treaty were the work of the ablest military minds on the Allied side during the War. They roamed over the whole field and put in every possible precaution against the terms of the Treaty being defeated by Germany and that limitation is, therefore, perfectly practicable and could be carried out universally if the nations cared to do so. But there is an even more powerful reason for a substantial limitation in expenditure on the armies of this and other countries. That is the case for the reduction and even the virtual abolition of armies, due to the revolution which is taking place to-day in methods of war. Mechanisation is now the new policy of the War Office, but mechanisation is already out of date. Mechanisation is being beaten and will be beaten by chemicalisation. It looks
as though warfare in the future will develop into a struggle between engineers and scientists; between aircraft, gas bombs and disease germs, and the defensive services organised by chemists, biologists and medical men. Chemical warfare is in its infancy. People are a little doubtful as to the possible developments of chemical warfare, but 30 years ago people were just as doubtful about the development of aircraft. The enormous development of various forms of chemical warfare during the late War and the substantial progress made since the War—to which not a word of reference has ing been made in this House—are transforming warfare far more than did the invention of gunpowder. The Powers have undertaken by Treaties made at Washington and Geneva not to use gas in time of war. Everybody knows that every nation will use gas in time of war. The general staffs of all nations are working on the assumption that they are going to use gas in time of war. There is no nation to-day that is not carrying out experiments in chemical warfare, notwithstanding Treaty obligation, and it is obvious that the first big crash which comes will mean that in spite of all Treaty obligations there will be such a development of chemical warfare as many people now hardly believe possible. Let me give the House this cold, sober account of "Lewisite," a gas which, I believe, was invented in the United States and was ready for use about the time when the late War ended:
Lewisite is invisible, it is a sinking gas which would reach down to cellars and dug-outs: if inhaled, it is fatal at once; if it settles on the skin, it produces almost certain death; masks alone are of no use against it; it is persistent; it has 55 times the 'spread' of any poison gas actually used in the War. Indeed, it was estimated by an expert that one dozen Lewisite air bombs of the largest size known in 1918—far larger sizes could now be used—might in favourable circumstances have wiped out the population of Berlin. And Lewisite is not the last word in gases. It is known that later research has given yet 'better' results in fatal effect, in penetrative power, in persistence and in spread.
That is the prospect in any future war, and not all the brass hats and red tabs, not all the equipment of the British Army would be able to counter the effects of that kind of warfare. Let me give another quotation, this time from the Chief Research Officer of the Chemical
Warfare Service of the American Army when he was explaining this question at a Congressional Hearing:
One plane, carrying two tons of the liquid (a certain gas-generating compound), could cover an area of 100 feet wide and seven miles long, and could deposit enough material to kill every man in that area by action on his skin. If Germany had had 4,000 tons of this material "—
and I understand Germany could easily have produced 1,000 tons per day—
and 300 or 400 planes equipped for its distribution, the entire first American Army would have been annihilated in 10 or 12 hours.
That makes modern armies perfectly futile. If you add to that, the even worse possibilities of the release from bombs of disease germs—and once ordinary restrictions are relaxed, such a thing is possible in the next great war—it seems ridiculous to carry an these little discussions about the Territorial Army and about what is to be done with the cavalry when we are face to face with a revolution in warfare such as the world has never known. No one knows whether, even this very year, there may not be produced some gas which will be absolutely irresistible. We shall be told, of course, that means of defence will be developed against this new form of war. Had means of defence always kept pace with means of offence, there would be no losses in time of war, but means of defence never have kept pace with means of offence and the fact that a certain type of shell can be met by a certain type of metal, does not prove that you can effective means of counteracting and preventing the effects of such poisonous gases as Lewisite and all the stream of poisonous gases that may well follow in its train. Therefore, all this talk about the mechanisation of the Army, about the cavalry, about tank development and artillery development is beside the point, because in 10 years, perhaps in five years, should war break out it may well prove to be the case that artillery and tanks will be as out of date as cross-bows, and as useless as pea shooters. Merely "pooh-poohing" these developments is not an argument. Clearly there is overwhelming reason for a substantial reduction in armies which are not going to be of any great use in the future; and, indeed, there is an overwhelming case for attempts to prevent war altogether. It is fairly simple to put a limitation on the
size of guns, the size of tanks and the size of armies and upon expenditure on them. Discussions have taken place as to the possibility of limiting the development of chemical warfare. That, in my judgment, is impossible because it is derived from the most adaptable industry in every industrial country, namely, the chemical industry. Even in the absence of any preparations before a war, the transference of the chemical industry from a peace basis to a war basis is only a matter of days and it may be of hours. Therefore, even if we agree to some form of limitation, we are faced with this fact, that should war break out, this is the kind of warfare we may expect. These are the Prime Minister's words:
Who, in Europe, does not know that one more war in the West and the civilisation of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome?
8.0 p.m.
In view of these facts, the civilisation of the ages would fall more rapidly and sink more deeply. I believe that there is everywhere, in spite of the misleading speeches made in this House to-day about increasing our military expenditure, a widespread feeling in this and other countries in favour of some serious attempt being made to reduce the expenditure on armaments and on armies, and to keep war should they occur within strictly defined limits. Under the Locarno Treaty the Powers undertook to give their "sincere co-operation to the work relating to disarmament already undertaken by the League of Nations and to seek the realisation thereof in a general agreement." But the purpose of this Amendment is to ask the Government to take a bold line, to take a courageous line; not to wait for proposals to be made, but, on their own responsibility, as a part of their general proposals, to make definite concrete suggestions for limitation of land forces. The further the Government have the courage to depart from the military psychology and to proceed along the road of disarmament, the greater the distance they will carry with them other nations. I realise that this is an international problem, but the further the Government do that, the greater will be the approbation of the British people. From our own point of view, the Government cannot go too far. The further the Govern-
ment will go in association with the other Powers in limiting land forces and land armaments and other forces, the better we shall be pleased. Even with their long and disastrous record, the Government, at this stage, may do something to retrieve their position in the eyes of the people of this country and in the eyes of the world. I hope that we shall have tonight from the Government a definite undertaking that they will do their part in submitting proposals for the reduction of armaments and that they will be glad to consider favourably any reductions proposed by the other Powers. That, in a word, the Government will carry out the pledges which this country gave in the Treaty of Peace and in the Treaty of Locarno, and that the Government will be sufficiently generous in spirit and sufficiently confident of the response that will be made by other nations, if this nation takes the lead, to be bold in taking a big step that might now be made to make war for ever impossible.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
We shall have, in the course of a discussion of the money to be provided for the three Fighting Services of this country, more than One occasion on which to raise the general questions of disarmament as it is being discussed through the League of Nations this year. I want to draw attention to two or three aspects of the problem of the reduction both of men and material in relation to the Estimates. I was exceedingly glad to hear this afternoon from the Secretary of State for War that we have made in one category a definite move in the direction of reduction. We have become so familiar with the talk about reduction particularly since 1919. Never a year has gone by when the Government of the country has not made very loud and very beautiful professions in language about reductions, but we have not had any substantial move in the direction of facing up to the responsibility to which we committed ourselves at the conclusion of the first world war. Therefore, I am sure it came as a great relief for hon. Members on all sides of the House to know that at last we have passed, in the direction of peace, from the stage of words to the stage of action, and that, in respect of the horses which are to be used in His Majesty's Army in future, we can record
the very favourable and very gratifying fact that there is a substantial prospect of a permanent reduction in the number of those dear dumb creatures which have played so large and so pathetic a part in British warfare in years past. It is one of the consolations to the British public that the growth of mechanisation in forms of warfare does lead to the happy release of these creatures. None of us who recall the experiences of the first world war will have any other than deep feelings of thankfulness that the progress of modern science is not only releasing the horse from the road and from the large variety of undesirable peace occupations, but that we have now got to the stage when we see that it is the deliberate policy of the British War Office progressively to reduce the number of these creatures that are required. That is a very cheering development, and I wish that we could have a special day in the House for the celebration of this great development in the reduction of the land forces of the British Army of the future. It will be quite a happy thing for all three parties to celebrate this great decision which we have reached. The disquieting feature of this development is, however, that the process of mechanisation is meaning in practice the very real and grave responsibility of advancing and increasing in a variety of ways the British Army of the future.
I would like to ask the representative of the War Office, in this year 1927, particularly in view of the Disarmament Conference which is pending at Geneva, and of our considered commitments to that Conference, whether they have any definite principle by which the nation is to be guided in this matter of disarmament? So far as I know, the present British Government have not laid down any other principle that that, in the first place, they want an Army large enough for the defence of these islands, and, in the second place, that they want an Army large enough for what they describe as the policing of the British Empire. I would like to ask whether the present Army, with the expenditure which is indicated in the present Estimates, is the minimum conception of an Army according to that principle? Do the Government really feel that the Estimates put forward this year do represent the minimum police force required for Great Britain and the British Empire? If that
be the case, then we are going to be confronted in the League of Nations this year with a practical problem of a most serious kind. We never had any serious practical attempt in the direction of the disarmament of land forces until 1919. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will remember that one of the big practical difficulties of those who took the view from 1899 to 1914 that the way to prevent the first world war was not to build up big insurances in the shape of fighting forces, but to secure a mutual agreement for disarmament, was that no nation has any kind of concrete standard or measure or principle by which disarmament could be carried out.
We had in this country a considerable number of very earnest-minded and public-spirited citizens who were advocating land disarmament from 1889 to 1914, but we made very little headway with regard to a concrete measure, a definite standard, whereby that disarmament could be carried out. But we did achieve, in 1919, a definite standard, and I should like to ask whether the War Office can reconcile the continuance of their present standard, that of policing the British Empire and these islands on numbers which work out in the terms of the present Estimate, with the principle that was applied through the Peace Treaty, which has become known to the world as the 1919 standard? That standard was not intended to make Germany, Austria, Hungary or Bulgaria insecure. The Allied experts who worked out that 1919 standard were not dreamers who were associated with the extreme pacifist cause throughout the world. They were men who were wanting to guarantee for all time the peace of Germany. I understand that the standard of disarmament as applied to land forces allowed in the year 1919 was that the armaments of Germany should be so reduced that she should never again be capable of making aggressive war. Germany was to have all that was required for her internal order for the maintenance of peace, order and security within her borders, and for the maintenance of perpetual peace within her realm, but she was not to be allowed to have any larger forces because if she had more she would be in a position where she could wage aggressive war. I submit that the 1919 standard
was not an idealist standard. It was not a standard out of the reach of practical politics. It was a standard that was deliberately laid down with the object primarily of promoting peace within Germany; of preventing Germany's ever again becoming an aggressive partner in the world's military forces. Other nations knew then that Germany was at peace and that Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria were incapable of aggressive warfare. From 1906 to 1914 those nations had been compelled for purposes of self-defence to pile up their armaments in order that they in turn might be able to pursue a policy of peace and in turn reach the standard provided for those four Powers.
This is not simply a British question, but a world question. The year 1927 is for Britain and for the world a year of decision in the matter of armaments, because if we do not make a decision this year, it is plain that we are committed to the old policy of increasing armaments. If we do not secure by mutual agreement this year a decision with regard to the fighting forces in a way that will make mutual disarmament possible on a guaranteed basis, it is clear that we shall begin another period of rival armaments in terms of tanks and armoured cars much more than in terms of men. Therefore, I want to have a careful and explicit statement from the War Office as to what is really the guiding policy of the Government in regard to land forces. Are they going to say, frankly and definitely, to the world tonight that their only principle is the one embodied in these Estimates, that what was done in 1919 for Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria, that the pledge that we gave when that unilateral disarmament of land forces was carried out, literally counts for nothing with us, that we stand by these Estimates, and that they represent our last word on the subject?
I should like to emphasise, not so much the question of the reduction of men—although it is clear that, if Germany is secure on 100,000 men for all purposes within Germany, the amount of land forces used by Great Britain and her self-governing Dominions and India shows ample room for reduction in terms of
men—as the question of materiel. We have heard a great deal about the fact that in Germany, notwithstanding that her army has been reduced to a maximum of 100,000 men, there is an enormous amount of secret preparation going on, that every university, which is full of good Tories, is busy preparing, through sporting clubs and hunting clubs and all kinds of little side-shows, for the maintenance of professional armies for the future, and there is a good deal, therefore, to be said for the allegation that the actual army of Germany is much greater than the Treaty figure of 100,000. I suppose there is a great deal of truth in that general statement of the position, but the other side of the matter, the question of materiel, armoured cars and tanks, is much more important from the point of view of effective disarmament, and it is well understood that the largest possible army that we can imagine in terms of men, an army of from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 men, without mechanical technique and the armament which characterises modern armies, is no good for international warfare.
The secret armies of Germany may be of consequence from the point of view of the internal life of Germany, but there is no military expert among the Allies who would contend that, however great those secret reserves may be in Germany, they are of any significance from the point of view of international war. The fact that Germany has had a policy of total disarmament in respect of tanks, armoured cars, and big guns means in effect that Germany is utterly incapable of waging international war with land forces. I understand from the Estimates, that we have at least 208 tanks attached to the British Army. I do not know the number of armoured cars, and I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us, but if it is enough for the peace of Germany to be entirely without tanks and armoured cars, I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary can justify the policy of working out the obligations of this country in terms of the Estimates that have been submitted to the House to-day. I want to press very strongly that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will tell us what kind of advice he proposes to give to Geneva, what kind of document or précis he is going
to give to Lord Cecil when he has to speak on behalf of the nation in terms of armaments.
The last point I would like to raise is the question of disarmament, not simply as it bears upon the existing men in the Army or their equipment, but whether the War Office cannot see its way to make a much more generous contribution towards the disarmament programme with reference to the preparation of the mind of this country. There has been a growing tendency in the last two or three years for the War Office to extend its propaganda work from the point of view of the preparation of the armies of the future, and I would like to ask whether it will not be possible for the War Office to make some definite commitment in principle with regard to the part that it is going to play in the future in the educational institutions of this country. We had an example given from the Carlisle Education Committee only last week, which elucidated in a very sombre way the propaganda work which the British War Office is carrying out in our schools. I have not yet been able to see the propaganda pamphlet, "The Army of To-day," which has been circulated in the schools of Carlisle, nor was I able, when I questioned the Noble Lord, the Minister of Education, last week, to ascertain how many schools were circulating this particular pamphlet, but that does give one kind of illustration of how the War Office is insinuating itself into the educational institutions of this country.
The growth of junior cadet corps, the steady, persistent pressure which the War Office bringing to bear upon the headmasters of all the public schools, and in some cases the secondary schools, of this country, the definite advice to them that they are not doing enough to promote military institutions inside the schools and colleges, are unmistakable propaganda on the part of the War Office to strengthen its hold upon the educational institutions of the: country. I submit that, in the light of this sort of evidence and of the wider considerations put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) as to the futility of building up armies in view of the modern technique in chemistry, bacteriology, and so on, it is a sounder proposition for the War Office, if it means to maintain itself as a strong
and powerful institution in this country, at least to leave the children alone, to give them freedom for the education that makes for life, and to leave them alone at least until they have reached years of discretion.
I quite agree with the principle that there must be apprenticeship for every vocation. I quite agree that for the complicated task of being a soldier or an officer, a major or general, there must be a period of apprenticeship, but I do submit that 16, 17 or 18 years of age is early enough to make a decision with regard to this particular group of vocations, and I plead very strongly on this third count that the War Office will show itself in this year 1927 not only capable of taking a great initiative in the reduction of man-power, but a reduction of the mechanical technique necessary for that man power. I plead in a much larger way, because at the present time the problem of our educational institutions is greater than the immediate practical problem. Everyone knows that Europe is far more in danger than Great Britain because of its armed forces. The amount of propaganda in the way of history and geography—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER ((fir. James Hope): This is rather outside the scope of the Amendment, which is that the Government should initiate proposals for international disarmament. The hon. Member appears to be going into military education.

Mr. SMITH: I do not want to wander at, all from the strict scope of the Amendment, but in view of the fact that the War Office have actually spent money on propaganda of this kind, from that point of view, I thought I should be well within the scope of the Amendment. I would, therefore, press this third point of view without elaborating it any further, and would ask the Under-Secretary if he cannot see his way to give some kind of pledge with regard to the activities of the War Office in relation to our educational institutions, not only as being of value to us, but as an example to the militarist educational institutions of the Continent, and, from that point of view, to lay the foundation not merely of the movement of practical disarmament, but, what is more important, the preparation of minds which will give us some permanent guarantee.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) gave a variety of reasons why there is the need for a reduction in the Land Forces, but, with the exception of one reason, all the reasons he gave would have been of equal weight three years ago. Yet three years ago the Government of which he was a member introduced Estimates which provided for an establishment of the Land Forces larger than is provided to-day. It is perfectly true that the cost is very heavy, but we must remember that it takes a much larger sum to-day to provide a given number of men than it did in the year 1914, and, moreover, in the Estimates to-day there is a very much larger non-effective Vote than was formerly the case, and that non-effective Vote cannot, of course, be reduced. The hon. Member in his Amendment urges the Government to
initiate proposals to secure international agreement on reductions in land forces.
I think before there is any chance of getting international agreement on this question, two conditions must be satisfied. In the first place, you must get all nations of the world to come into that agreement, and not merely those nations which are now members of the League of Nations, because if you get one powerful nation declining to come in, it seems to me quite impossible for any agreement ever to be arrived at. The second condition is that the will-to-peace all over the world must be stronger than it is in some parts of the world to-day. I believe that unless you can get those two conditions satisfied, it is not very likely that an international agreement will be reached. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that we have not made sufficient reductions since the War; that is to say, comparing the strength of our land forces to-day with what they were in 1914, we might have made greater reductions than we have done in view of the results of the War.
I do not think that is altogether a fair comparison. Our Army of 1914 was unequalled in quality, but it was not sufficient in numbers for the task required of it. Therefore, I do not think it can be taken as a standard of what our requirements are to-day. It may be true that our liabilities in Europe are less than they used to be, though one must
remember that we have certain obligations under the Treaty of Locarno and under the Covenant of the League of Nations, and we must be in a position to fulfil those obligations if necessary. But Europe is not the only place of which we have to think. We have to maintain our overseas garrisons, more especially our garrison in India. In India we have very extensive land frontiers, and we are liable to attack. It seems to me that whatever may be the case in Europe, the situation in Asia is more difficult and more menacing than it was before the War. I think the hon. Member suggested that things were not so menacing. I would like to refer him to a speech of the Commander-in-Chief in India, reported in to-day's papers. Therefore:
I do not think that at this present moment a further reduction in our land forces is possible.
The hon. Member says there is need for reduction. There is a need for many things. There is a need for reduction in the Income Tax. Whether there is or is not a need for reduction in the land forces, I do not think at the present time it would be possible for us to undertake it. I would like to reinforce what has been said by other Members that we in this House ought to have the opportunity of considering land defenee in its relation to naval defence and air defence. We ought to have in this House an opportunity of considering the Estimates as a whole, not only from the point of view of operations, but also from the point of view of administration, because I believe it is in the sphere of administration that, if we had the opportunity of considering the Estimates as a whole, we might he able, possibly, to make suggestions whereby economies might be effected, and I hope very much that before long we may he able to have that opportunity.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment asked very pertinently for some information as to whether the British Army was intended to do more than police the Empire. I think he will get the answer that it is only for that purpose, and that it is hardly big enough to do it, and therefore I cannot see that we could have given a better lead to other countries towards the reduction of armaments than we have done
in bringing in Estimates which have been getting lower year by year. I would like to refer to the proposed reduction in the cavalry. Speaking as an old cavalry officer, I fear one will have to sing the swan song of the British cavalry in a few years' time. But conditions alter, and just as the other day the West Indian Regiment gave up its colours to His Majesty, so I feel that in place of the hotch-potch reductions proposed here entire regiments ought to be asked to end their glorious careers—to come to an end as regiments instead of being reduced piecemeal as is proposed in this re-organisation scheme. Speaking from some experience of commanding a regiment, it seems quite impossible to put into a regiment one squadron of one regiment and one squadron of another, and then expect that regiment to be ready to do its duty whenever it may be called upon. The present strength of a regiment is being reduced by 113 horses and 95 riders. That means that if the regiment is to be used at all it will have to be combined with another regiment. That is not economy, it is most extravagant. If there be a weak regiment of two squadrons—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think these observations of the hon. and gallant member would be more appropriate on Vote A. The question now before the House is whether the Government should make proposals for disarmament to other Powers. The hon. and gallant Member's observations would be quite in order when that question has been disposed of, or on Vote A, but they are baldly in order now.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I will sit down after one more observation. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last pointed out that in to-day's newspapers the Commander-in-Chief in India is reported as saying there are only 59,000 British troops in India, whereas 75,000 has always been regarded as the lowest possible number necessary to police India and keep it safe. That fact shows what I said before, that the British Army is only a police force Much as we would desire to disarm if other nations would only disarm with us, it would be madness and folly for us to do it before we are quite sure that other nations would follow our lead. Nothing shows that
more clearly than the situation in China at the present moment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: So far as I have heard the Debate to-night it has struck me as being rather an amazing one. Army representative after Army representative has spoken upon the needs of the land forces and upon armaments generally upon the assumption that the Amendment calls for the immediate diasarmament of this country irrespective of what other countries may do, or at least the partial disarmament of this country so far as its land forces are concerned. The Amendment is nothing of the kind. It is simply a proposal that at the forthcoming conference to consider definite standards of disarmaments for all the nations Great Britain should take the initiative. The line I take upon this question of national defence and war is that so long as we have armaments they must be adequate and efficient. If they are neither, we might just as well be without them. Because I take that line I think it would be very desirable for those Members of the House who are Army men, and who know the technical side of the question, to give the House the benefit of their experience of what constitutes efficiency and adequacy. That raises the question as to what idea the nation may have regarding the use of our forces. Hon. Members have spoken about the policing of this nation and the policing of the Empire. If it is a question of just policing this country and policing the Empire, then it is not a question of throwing huge forces upon the Continent. An hon. and gallant Member on the other side mentioned that at the beginning of the Great War our standing Army was very small and not adequate to the needs of the occasion, and, as we know, the original Army sent over to France was wiped out within a few months. If our objective is to be what was done in the Great War, I cannot help thinking hard of what the future holds for humanity and for civilisation.
I believe whole-heartedly in the defence of this country. So long as we are responsible for an Empire, we have to look to the defence of the Empire, or to the policing of it. And I do not believe in giving up India, as some people say—scuttling out without giving India the chance of developing the possibilities of
democratic self-government. But when it comes to a question of expeditionary forces for another world war, we must think what such a war will mean for the country, for the world and for humanity generally. Surely everybody realises that within a short time of the outbreak of any great world war on a scale approaching that of the last war both sides would be wiped out by the use of chemical forces, if by no other means. It would be possible to wipe out London in a few hours by means of some hundreds or thousands of planes containing bombs and poison gas; and what other countries could do to London we could do to other countries. There may be other means of defence, but at the same time nothing is going to prevent an adequate air force performing its work, and the only thing we have in answer to a threat of that kind if it is carried out in regard to London is to make those who have carried out that threat suffer in the same way a few hours afterwards.
What is the use of talking about land forces being used for expeditionary purposes? If you are going to maintain a standing army on the lines of your expeditionary force, it will be impossible to carry out the land war on the same lines as during the last Great War. It seems to me that there is a fallacy somewhere, and I would like that question gone into. For these reasons it is impossible to visualise a great world war on the lines of the last War, because if such a thing did come about it would mean the devastation of civilisation. Surely we are entitled to know something of the problem from a technical point of view, and therefore we are justified in moving an Amendment of this character. Ours of all nations is a great military and naval nation which can take the lead in a move for international peace as no other nation in the world can do, and surely this party is not asking too much in urging that we should take that lead, and initiate proposals for disarmament upon the experience of the actual policing needs of the nation rather than upon the presumption of the possibility of another great world war that would mean a gigantic standing army and air force in the future. Let us get to the practical facts, It is all very well to talk about disarmament as an abstract question, but if we are going to talk
about disarmament let us know how much we can disarm ourselves. This is an opportunity by the House passing this Amendment to get technical advice and knowledge from our experts incorporated in definite proposals so that we can take the lead in the movement for national peace.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to support the Amendment, the case for which has been so ably presented by previous speakers. One might almost say that the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) might be regarded as a sort of acid test of the sincerity of the various Government spokesmen in the past with regard to their adhesion to the principle of international arbitration and disarmament. The previous speaker was quite right in emphasising the fact that the Amendment does not invite the House to agree to any immediate proposal for disarmament on the part of this country regardless of what may happen elsewhere. The. Amendment is a strictly limited proposal, and it asks the Government as such to express their readiness to table a Motion of proposals on behalf of this country at the forthcoming Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, and it also limits it further by referring for the present simply to the land forces of the Crown. I submit, at the outset, that the Amendment ought to be passed unanimously, because the Government, I have no doubt, will have to discuss this question of disarmament in one form or another at the Disarmament Conference. The spokesmen for the Government have repeatedly said in public speeches that no Government could advance along this line unless it felt that there was a strong and well-organised public opinion behind it, and I submit that if the Government is to speak with anything like authority at the Disarmament Conference it is appropriate that its hands should be strengthened by the Amendment we are pressing forward to-night.
This Amendment contains no new principle. On three very important occasions its principle has already been endorsed. It was endorsed in the Covenant of the League of Nations; it was also endorsed in the Protocol of Geneva in 1924 and in the Locarno Pact of 1925. Consequently we are in the happy position that
a leader of each of the three parties in this House has taken a personal share at one time or another in getting this principle of international agreement concerning disarmament not only ventilated but embodied in some official document. The leader of the Liberal party supported this principle in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and so did the Leader of the Opposition in the Geneva Protocol in 1924; and recently a distinguished member of the present Government, the Foreign Secretary, had a share in the Locarno Pact. Therefore it may fairly be claimed that through those commitments on the part of all the political leaders and various parties in this House the whole nation has thereby been committed. What is the present position? Germany has been compulsorily disarmed. Germany is now a member of the League of Nations, and on the occasion when Germany had to subscribe to the Articles of the Treaty whereby she herself should in future disarm, when she attached her signature, a definite undertaking was given on behalf of the other Powers by M. Clemenceau to the effect that the disarmament imposed upon Germany was not to be regarded as limited to Germany, but was a preliminary to disarmament on the part of the Allies themselves. Therefore you cannot in fairness disarm Germany and preserve complete freedom for yourselves to have as large an army as you like. If you are entitled for your own security to disarm Germany then Germany is entitled for her own security to say to the League that the Allies should give her security in the same way. We cannot have one foot in the Peace Council of Geneva and another foot in a bomb factory. We must make up our minds as to what our attitude in this matter is. Therefore, the pledges which we have given publicly to Germany on this matter, and which have been broadcast throughout the whole world, must be redeemed.
There is another aspect of this matter of the disarmament of Germany which is worthy of attention. Hon. Members may argue in this House that it is a good thing for Germany to have been disarmed. That is quite true, and I cordially agree with it; but may it not also be argued that the very fact that Germany has been so disarmed, and thereby relieved of the heavy burden of armaments, will enable
the resuscitation of Germany at a speedy rate, and enable her, perhaps, to secure leadership in international commercial rivalries much more easily than otherwise would have been the case? I fortify myself on that point by referring to an article written, not by a pacifist, but by the late Lord Northcliffe on the 4th November, 1918, just a week before the War ended. He wrote:
It will soon be found that to insist on an unduly large Army or Navy is to saddle one's own country with a huge expense. To insist on the disarmament of another country may be to present that country with a huge annual income that can be used in commercial rivalry.
I submit that the present situation, whereby Germany has been disarmed, may, in fact, prove a sort of boomerang by which we may be hit in a commercial way rather than in the way of armaments. I think we may reasonably argue that it might be a good thing for us to follow suit and reduce our heavy commitments in armaments, so that our own commerce and business may revive and keep their place in the great rivalries of to-day and to-morrow.
9.0 p.m.
To pass to another aspect of the subject, we have had in recent years the old philosophy propounded that, if you want to guarantee peace, you must be prepared for war. I very much doubt whether anyone would care to defend that proposition in this House to-night, bearing in mind the history of Europe in the course of the last 20 years. Here, up to 1914, was a whole continent armed to the teeth, with a plenitude of armaments on every hand, and yet those armaments, unlimited in their extent and scope and power, utterly and absolutely failed to preserve the peace of Europe. Indeed, these colossal armaments, so far from safeguarding peace, actually created suspicions, fostered hatreds generated rivalries, and made the late War inevitable. It is, therefore, fair to ask, in connection with this Resolution, does anyone now believe that preparation for war is cheaper than the alternative suggestion in this Amendment—namely, discussion of methods of disarmament? I have been interested during the week-end in some estimates, which, of course, are quite general in their terms, and, perhaps, are not defensible in every particular, but
are still interesting as an attempt on the part of economists to estimate the total cost, both direct and indirect, of the late War to the nations concerned in it. Professor Bogart, an American professor, has estimated that the cost, both direct and indirect, to all the nations involved in the late War, amounted to the colossal total of £70,000,000,000. If we examine the cost of armaments from an-other angle, we find that, to-king fourteen countries involved in the late War, their total National Debt in 1900 stood at something like £4,000,000,000, while in 1920 the National Debt of those fourteen nations stood at something like £53,000,000,000. To put it in another way, it has been estimated—it can only be a rough calculation, it is true—that if we could put into figures, could capitalise, as it were, the wasted human effort involved during the late War, and if that effort were diverted to useful channels, it would represent the work of 1,000,000 workers working a 44-hour week for 3,000 years.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: That is not a very useful figure.

Mr. JONES: It may not be a useful figure, but at any rate it will enable my hon. and gallant Friend to understand that there does come a time in the affairs of men when it is proper to inquire whether there is not some other method—

Sir R. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will give the alternative of going to war?

Mr. JONES: We are submitting it in this Amendment to-night. A poet once put the problem that is before us to-night in these words:
Were half the power that fills the world with terror,
And half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts,
Given to redeem the human mind from error,
There were no need for arsenals and forts.
Let us take the problem as it confronts this Cabinet, or would confront any other Cabinet, at this present moment. There are some six Ministers directly or indirectly involved in this problem. There are three concerned with the problem of defence—the Secretary of State for War,
the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for Air. On the other hand, there are three Ministers concerned with the essential social services—the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education. Between them we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has to find the money for them all, and the unfortunate. Foreign Secretary who has to go and speak in accents of peace at Geneva every year, and, indeed, twice or three times a year, and who is doing it possibly at this very moment, while at the same time we are expending this enormous wealth upon instruments of destruction. Is it not within the recollection of everyone in the House that during this very evening hon. Members have darkly hinted at certain other Ministries that might very well have their efforts curtailed? I do not suppose that any of those speakers would have desired to curtail the Navy or the Air Force. Therefore, they could only have referred to the social services for health or education or in connection with the Ministry of Labour; and who will deny that each of the Ministers of those three Departments is having his efforts absolutely crippled by reason of the colossal expenditure upon these wasteful armaments? Since we have spent so prodigally upon the instruments of aggression or defence, call it which you like, in the last 10 years. Surely it is reasonable for us to ask that the social services, the reconstructive forces of society, should now have their share. If we could stop at that statement of the case we should feel perhaps disquieted, but we have in each of the Estimates—certainly I have seen it in two of them, these and the Estimates for next Thursday as well—sums set aside whereby for the future we are going to develop an entirely new arm of aggression, namely, chemical warfare. We are assured rather confidently by the Memorandum issued to-night that we are not going to be behind in this race:
Anti-gas defence has been pursued with vigour, and problems connected with collective protection as well as individual protection are being carefully studied.
There is a vista of what we are to expect in any war in the future. But we are not to be unduly alarmed by this, for the right hon. Gentleman gives us this crumb of comfort:
A new and greatly improved pattern of respirator has been issued to a large proportion of our troops.
But in the next war it is not merely the troops who are going to be involved. We are all going to be combatants in one form or another. Men, women and children will be involved, and what Minister could stand at that Box to-night or at any time and assure the House and the country that in the presence of this new chemical warfare respirators are going to be adequate to protect the general public? We have had a quotation from the Mover of the Motion giving us an indication of the sort of thing that may happen in any country invaded and made subject to attack with these chemicals. I need only add this quotation from an American writer:
No other invention since that of gunpowder has made so profound a change in warfare as gas is making or will make in the future. Gas smoke and incendiary materials are used to a greater or less extent by every army. Wherever gas is used it compels practically measures which are found in no other branch of the service. Considering its power it has no equal. Physical vigour is one of the greatest assets in any army, but gas used properly and in quantities easily obtainable in future wars will make the wearing of masks a continuous affair for all troops within from two to five miles of the front line. Gas is inescapable. No trench is too deep for it. No dug-out, unless hermetically sealed, is safe from it. It is the only weapon that is effective in a fog or the inky blackness of a moonless night as it is with the most brilliant sunshine.
There we have an anticipation of the sort of thing that will happen in any possible future war unless it is arrested. The more efficient we are the more barbarous we seem to become. The question raised in our Motion is: Cannot some halt be called to this mad race in mutual destruction? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite asked me what we would propose.

Sir R. HALL: No, I asked what was the alternative to going to war. I referred specifically to 1914.

Mr. JONES: I am afraid it is no use going back over old history like that. That has gone. What we have to do is to learn from yesterday and prepare for to-morrow. I gathered the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted me to say what was our alternative as proposed in the Amendment. There is in fact con-
siderable discussion going on on the Continent under the auspices of the League of Nations upon this matter and two sub-Committees have been busily occupied with detailed preparations for the great disarmament conference which must presently be held. Someone may say that is all very well, but what is the use of relying upon those expedients? I am happy to tell anyone who may address that question to me that we have the authority of a distinguished member of the Government for asserting that the proposal we make to-night is one that is not entirely in the air but in practice is being discovered to be full of hope. Let me read a passage from a speech delivered by Lord Cecil. He says:
The point is that all the experts meeting together have never contested the practicability of disarmament. They have always said it can be done in this way or it could be done in that way. No one has said it cannot be done at all. That is a result of great importance to have achieved in the discussions which have taken place. I am perhaps by temperament sanguine, but I have very little doubt that this thing can he done and success achieved on three conditions.
It is obvious that the spokesman of the Government, speaking in another place, made it abundantly clear that there is every reason to believe that such a proposal will be treated not merely as a visionary proposal but as one that is practicable, and so it has been found apparently—found, not by people drawn from civil life merely for one of these Commissions is made up almost exclusively of representatives of the armies, navies and air forces of various countries. If these military people have come to the conclusion that the proposal is a practicable one, what stands in the way of the Government declaring quite positively tonight that it for its part is prepared to table resolutions to this end at the forthcoming conference? I should have been glad if this Amendment could get a supporting speech from the Leader of the Tory party, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal party, because it is very important nowadays that if England goes into these disarmament conferences—she must go there; whether she goes empty handed or not is another point, but we hope not—her representative should speak the mind, not merely of the Government of the day but that that Government is supported whole-
heartedly by the whole opinion of the country as well.

Mr. COUPER: Does the hon. Member refer to England alone, or to Britain; the whole country?

Mr. JONES: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I believe he is a fellow Celt. I should not have used the word "England," for that might imply leaving out Wales. I will use the word "Britain." I was saying that I hoped that the representative of the Government who attends the Disarmament Conference may be able to feel that he speaks the whole mind of the country when he supports the disarmament proposals.
There is one word which I should like to address to hon. Members opposite, and I do it with very great reserve, knowing that there are very big differences of opinion between some of them and hon. Members on this side on other questions. They sometimes address to us appeals in favour of what they call domestic peace, and God knows we require it. When we remind them that a distinguished economist like Sir Josiah Stamp estimates that our burden of armaments involves cutting down the standard of living for our people to a point 10 per cent. below what it ought to be, are we not entitled to turn to them and say, "Yes, we are prepared to grant the need for peace in industry; we are prepared to grant the necessity for peace within our own shores, but with how much greater authority would that appeal come, if you assist as to-night to carry a Resolution which, if it were embodied in an international agreement, would rase the standard of living of our people by removing the colossal burden of armaments from their shoulders? That would be one way of lightening the tremendous burden which depresses commerce, business and industry in this country.
Although it might be a difficult thing for our country to take the lead in this matter, as in other things, still, it is the big nations that can best afford to make a gesture like this. I would therefore plead with the Secretary of State for War to give the House a pledge that the Government can accept heartily a Resolution which will lead to the presentation of proposals at the forthcoming Dis-
armament Conference, so that our own country may thereby make a real contribution to international peace.

Captain KING: I have little cause to complain of the actual terms of the Amendment before the House, and have not much reason to complain of the speeches which have been made. They have expressed one point of view, and the point of view which has been put with exceptional moderation in this Debate. It is true that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and others who have supported it have exercised a very vivid imagination, not only of their own, but they have drawn on the imagination of other people to enforce the horrors of war in the future. I do not know that any of us who took part in any way in the late War need much conversion to that gospel. We all realise the horrors of war, but at the same time they should not deter us from making such preparations as are necessary until we can be assured that war is impossible.
The actual terms of this Amendment demand that His Majesty's Government should in the Preparatory Commission for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference take certain steps. In the first place, I want to point out that this Preparatory Commission is for the purpose of carrying through certain preliminary arrangements. The definite proposals would, of course, come before the Disarmament Conference. The last speaker quoted the words used in another place by the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy. I think the quotation which he has made should be sufficient to convince him that the Noble Lord will most certainly carry through to his utmost ability the views which he expressed in that quotation. I also cat assure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and hon. Members opposite, that the Chancellor of the Duchy in going to Geneva as the representative of the British Government will do all in his power to secure international agreement on the reduction in land forces.
The last few words of the Amendment really govern the whole subject. It can only be done by international agreement. Hon. Members opposite have been quite fair on that point throughout the Debate. That means that it affects not only those nations that will he represented at the
League of Nations conference, but other very powerful nations who do not belong to the League, and who will not be represented at the conference. We have heard a great deal of reference from hon. Members opposite to the position of Germany. We have been told that Germany has had disarmament forced upon her. Although we have had many references to Germany, we have not heard a single word with regard to Russia. Russia, unfortunately, will not be represented, as far as I understand, at this League of Nations Conference. Russia is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, military nation in the world as regards numbers. The standing army of Russia at the present time amounts to very nearly 650,000 men, while their organised subsidiary forces amount to very nearly 9,000,000. Therefore, when hon. Members opposite are asking us to limit our armaments in this country, so as to give a good example to foreign nations, surely with the influence which they seem to possess at times with Russia, they might try to force the views which they have expressed here on Russia. I am not saying it in any offensive way in the slightest; but we do know that hon. Members opposite, perhaps not the Mover of the Amendment, are in very close touch with members of the Russian Government.

Mr. JONES: I am not, I assure you.

Captain KING: I am not making any special personal reference. It is, however, to the Russian Government, which will not be represented at the conference, that some of the suggestions about limitation should be made. Witt regard to the actual size of our Army, several hon. Members opposite have spoken as if we were in competition both with regard to numbers and materials with foreign countries. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) expound the theory, with which I entirely agree, that if we are to have a force it must be adequate and efficient. That is the kind of force that this country has always aimed at possessing.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What does that mean?

Captain KING: I should like to tell you what it means. It means that it
must be adequate and sufficient to carry out the land defence of our Empire. I shall not try to make an Imperial speech, but our Empire has its lines of communications, which, in the first place, are in charge of the Navy. Their terminal points, our large bases and our fuelling stations are left to the Army for protection, and the Army provides the actual land protection of the bases which we hold. One has only to turn one's mind to some of our great trade routes in order to see where our military garrisons abroad are placed. One finds them along the trade routes: Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, the Sudan, Aden—and going on down—Singapore and Hong Kong, while, on the other side of the Atlantic one finds the West Indies. It is in those places that our military garrisons arc placed, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that those garrisons have been reduced so much in recent years that they are barely sufficient to be able to carry out such duties as are thrust upon them. In many cases in regard to artillery in our forts in those places which I have mentioned, one will find that the actual regular personnel has been reduced to such an extent that the full defence of the battery has to be made up by locally organised defence forces. With those limitations and with our Army cut down to that extent, it is not possible for us to give a much better example than we have done to the League of Nations.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment made rather sarcastic play about our talk of reduction in the Army and spoke about our having reduced nothing but horses. He seems to forget that, although there has been a slight increase in the numbers this year, for reasons which were explained by my right hon. Friend, there has been an actual reduction in the Regular Forces of 5,000 men this year. Since 1922 there has been a reduction of over 50,000 men. Surely those reductions should be a very good example and should assure the other countries of Europe that we are not facing them in any aggressive spirit and that the forces which we have are needed solely and only in the defence of our Empire. Various other items have been raised, but I do not think I need go into details as to the organisation of the Army. One hon. Member asked me to give details about the number of tanks,
armoured cars, and so on, which we should consider as the minimum, the lowest limit to which we could go in dealing with the League of Nations Conference. All these questions of men and material must depend upon the attitude taken up by the other foreign countries. It is not a matter for us alone; it can only be settled if we know what other countries are willing to do. The hon. Member for Pennistone (Mr. Rennie Smith)—I do not know if he was in Order, for Mr. Deputy-Speaker pulled him up before he had gone very far—dealt with another point of the Estimates, namely the education programme of the War Office. He seems to think it a pity that boys at school—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is also going too far.

Captain KING: I apologise for going beyond your ruling. I thought the hon. Member, when you pulled him up, was going a step farther than I intended to go. I shall only repeat that the strength of our Army is not based upon any competitive basis, but is merely based upon the necessity for the defence of our Empire. Though we shall be willing to meet foreign countries in any possible way, it can only be by international agreement representing all the great nations of the earth.

Mr. MacLAREN: An Amendment of this kind leaves itself open to a good deal of sentimentalism. I have listened to a great many of the speeches which have been delivered so far, and I quite admit that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are responsible for the War Office, must have wondered, as one hon. Member has already asked, what is the alternative to going to war? I do not think there is any hon. Member who would delight in going to war, and I am sure that every one of us would take delight in doing something to remove the causes of war. Here is an Amendment asking that something should be done on the Government side at the forthcoming conference. I have always looked upon armaments, not as the cause of war, but as the reflection of the economic and political constitution in the country that has those armaments. They are not the causes of war, but the outward sign of the inward constitution of the State that has them. To listen
to the Debate to-night one would think that armaments were the cause of war. The Financial Secretary to the War Office seems to think that the League of Nations could do something, and that Lord Cecil, who is there now, will be able to go a long way towards abolishing the necessity for armaments. In 1925 I was in Geneva one afternoon when M. Loucheur came into the League of Nations Council and solemnly assured us that he was going to table a resolution, which would bring the whole of the League down to bed-rock facts, and that we would then come to grips with this octopus of armaments that was crawling all over Europe. His resolution was that the League should appoint a Committee to inquire into the economic causes of war.
When I heard the resolution I thought that at last the League of Nations was getting away from the clouds and coming down to reality. I shall never forget, however, the disappointment I felt, in common with the others who were there, when he, in advancing his resolution, said that certain things should not be brought within the four corners of the discussion. The question of Protection should not come in; the question of inter-Allied debts should not come in; the question of the governance of armies and navies in their respective countries should not come in. After eliminating all those factors, his resolution was reduced to nothing at all.
In common with most pacifists and indeed with the warriors on the other side of the House, I would like to see an end of armaments and an end of war. I do not think you will ever attain anything or come near a reduction of armaments or of the causes that give rise to war until the whole of the Government, which is responsible not only for the policy of the War Office but also for the policies that give rise to the policy of the War Office, are sitting on those benches opposite listening to a full-dress Debate on the causes that give rise to war in this and other countries. When I look at the representative of the War Office and think that we are asking him to pledge the Government to a policy at Geneva and when I know the difficulties of the Colonial Secretary, of the Prime Minister, and of the Foreign Secretary, and the obligations which give rise to the necessity for high efficiency in his Department, I know that he would be a
brave man to give any assurance as to what should be done in his Department until he knows fully what the rest of the Government are going to do. I am anxious that peace should be obtained by all means, but after my experience in Geneva, and all that has happened before, I am not at all sanguine that anything can be accomplished because in this and other countries armies and military equipment are dictated by the territory, the Empire, and the interests that have to be defended. Those are the real causes which give rise to armaments, and, unless you discuss armaments in relation to these questions, I do not see how any pious resolutions are going to help you very much. It is the old question of trying to deal with an enormous subject in a water-tight compartment. I may be running Outside your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I mention some of the things which I consider are the real causes of war, some of the policies pursued by Governments which necessitate war, but no amount of pleading to-night is going to avail us anything. I warn the right hon. Gentleman not to give any assurance to support the Amendment to-night because there are other matters that must be taken into consideration. Other hon. Members have said that they are in favour of disarmament within strict limits, but I should like them on other occasions, when they are demanding higher protective duties—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now mentioning things which he said he must not mention.

Mr. MacLAREN: I hope you will see my difficulty. There are so many things connected with this problem that I feel it is utterly hopeless to attempt to deal with it on the present occasion. The real causes of militarism run much deeper than anything we have discussed to-night, and no harrowing description of the battlefield will make a man into a pacifist if he has some interest to defend. He will defend them even if the horrors of future wars are to be worse than the last. What we have to try and go is a common understanding as to how it is possible to maintain our rights as an Empire consistently with the rights of other countries. Until we have a wide discussion on the whole
economic field and the interrelations of men, which are ruled out from the Debate this evening, we cannot deal with the problem which we are attempting to discuss this evening.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member who has just sat down started by saying that in his opinion armaments were not the cause of war, and he went on to say that the causes of war were economic and that armaments would not be reduced until our whole policy was on a peaceful basis. He said that you cannot regard disarmament as a single isolated problem, that armaments depended on policy, and that until you changed your policy you could not reduce your armaments. We all agree with a great deal that he said, but may I put this one practical point to him, that there are other factors which may cause war, and that the existence of large and excessive armaments may be a cause. He may think that other factors are more important, but he must remember the state into which we had allowed the world to get in 1914, and must surely recognise that excessive armaments make war more probable. If we start from that point surely we do come to the conclusion that an attempt to reduce armaments ought to be made, and that the Government are quite right in making the attempt. As far as land armaments are concerned, I think we have brought down the Army to its lowest possible size, and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we cannot reduce it very much lower. I hope the hon. Member will allow me to say one word in defence of the League of Nations. He treated the League of Nations as a body which talked a lot and did little. May I respectfully ask him to consider the fact that the League of Nations is making a real attempt to bring peace, and that as a first step it is trying to secure a reduction of armaments. That campaign for reduction has gone a very long way. We all know the process that has been gone through so far. We have got the nations of the world into the frame of mind to reduce and limit armaments. He wants a reduction, he wants peace, just as much as I do, but I do not think it helps the cause of peace to attack the League of Nations, which is the only body who can fill the bill and do the work.

Mr. MacLAREN: May I say that I do not lot a moment wish it to be felt that I was attacking the League of Nations. I wish it was a much stronger body, but I have noticed, since its inception, that when it is dealing with the economic causes for armaments it is very timid and compromising.

Major HILLS: It cannot dictate to the nations what policy they are to pursue. It can only say to the nations: "You are all carrying much too big armaments, and provided you agree together, there is no reason why you should not reduce them." The first practical step is to get a reduction in excessive armaments, get them cut down first, and then if the hon. Member can pursuade the League of Nations to take up his second point, he will have done much good work. We must prevent the world getting back to the state it was in 1914. It was not only economic and national questions which brought on the War, it was the existence of bloated armaments; they were one of the causes of the War. Unless we reduce them, there is real danger of something of the same sort occurring again. I welcomed the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He pointed out that we had reduced our armaments very largely in the last six years. I think we should all agree that our Army is now on a basis of Imperial police only. I do not think we can give anything further away in the Army. But I am glad to know that disarmament is to be discussed at Geneva, and I have great hopes that something great will come out of the Disarmament Conference. The Conference is a very great attempt to remove a real evil and it deserves support.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the great importance of the Amendment and the fact that we have not had an opportunity for a very long time of discussing what is going on in the Preparatory Commission at Geneva, the House ought not to grudge a few extra moments in considering what is happening there. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) must not suppose that in

our criticism of the Preparatory Commission we intend to cast any aspersion either on Lord Cecil or on the League of Nations. It is very important for the House to realise the way in which the Preparatory Commission is getting to work. The members of the Commission have begun their inquiries by setting out a questionnaire to be answered by subcommittees. It begins in this way:

"1. What are armaments?
2. What is meant, by a reduction of armaments?
3. To what extent d) economic factors enter into the question of armaments?"
They charge the sub-committees to enter upon this intricate and prolonged system of inquiry. So far as I can see, that is not going to lead us anywhere. It is a kind of psycho-analysis of the problems of Europe. It is going to excite rather than allay apprehension. Unless we approach the subject with far greater definiteness, we shall never reach any satisfactory achievement in disarmament. For that reason I am entirely unable to understand why the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment. There is no suggestion that we alone should reduce our Army; the proposal is for a reduction of land forces by initiating proposals for general disarmament at the Disarmament Conference. The Financial Secretary to the War Office did not tell us a word about the proceedings of that preparatory Commission. So far from placating any apprehension I have had, they have made me very anxious as to what is going on in the Commission. The Government ought to approach the question with far greater definiteness and determination. They ought to insist that the problems of disarmament are to be brought down to the numbers of land forces, and that there should be far more definite questions answered than questions about economic factors, and something more than abstruse and intricate inquiries which lead nowhere.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided; Ayes, 223; Noes, 108.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Apsley, Lord
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Bennett, A. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Berry, Sir George


Applin, Colonel B. V. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Blundell, F. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir H. (Eastbourne)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd,Henley)
Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes., Stretford)


Burman, J. b.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Herbert,S.(York, N. R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T,
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Homan, C. W. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Cope, Major William
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Storry-Deans, R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison,G.A.Ciark(Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jacob, A. E.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Tinne, J. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Waddington, R.


England, Colonel A,
Lamb, J. Q.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otleyl


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watts, Dr. T.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, H. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Willlams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Margesson, Captain D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.
Withers, John James


Goff, Sir Park
Merriman, F. B.
Womersley, W. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wragg, Herbert


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)
Nelson, Sir Frank



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grotrian, H. B.
Nuttall, Ellis
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon.F.E. (Bristol, N.)
Oakley, T.



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Connolly, M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Cove, W. G.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Barnes, A.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Day, Colonel Harry


Barr, J.
Charleton, H, C.
Dennison, R.


Batey, Joseph
Clowes, S.
Duncan, C.


Brlant, Frank
Cluse, W. S.
Dunnico, H.


Broad, F. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Fenby, T. O.




Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lindley, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Gilliett, George M.
Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Griffiths, T. {Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Montague, Frederick
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Purcell, A. A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawrence, Susan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Lawson, John James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY.in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 166,4500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928.

Mr. GILLETT: I wish to draw attention to several points on this Vote. Before doing so, speaking as an unofficial Member who has no connection with the military or naval Forces, may I say that it seems a pity we have to enter upon the discussion of these Estimates, dealing with the military side of the nation's expenditure, without the advantage of any central committee to give those of us who have no technical knowledge a general review of the whole military position as it affects the Army, Navy and Air Force at the present time. Even those who are unconnected with the Forces know that the recent. War made an enormous change in the whole system of armaments. Looking at the matter from the financial standpoint, it seems to me that we have made a great mistake in leaving the decisions on these matters to such a large extent in the hands of the branches of the military and naval forces
which are concerned. We leave to the War Office experts or to the naval experts the decision as to what part of their equipment or what branches of their forces have become out of date. In today's Debate we have heard from those connected with the Army a discussion as to whether or not the horse is out of date. I suppose when we come to consider the Naval Estimates we shall he told by certain naval experts that ships of a certain class, even great battleships, are no longer required. But the final decision is to a large extent left to the particular branch concerned. This, in all probability, only leads to a waste of money, because no Service cares to dispense with any of its branches—at any rate it will hesitate before doing so. I hope the Government at some time will consider the possibility of setting up a Committee representing all the various branches, which will consider the whole military position and give decisions on these questions instead of leaving them to be dealt with piecemeal as is done at the present time first in the Army and then in the Navy Debates
The points which I wish to bring before the Committee will I fear receive the support of neither Front, Bench. I confess I heard with amazement the speech of the ex-Secretary of State for War in reply to the speech of the present Secretary of State for War. My experience of Debates on military matters is that you first have a speech from the Secretary
of State for War and then a speech from his predecessor in that office, or whatever party he may belong, and they throw bouquets at each other across the Floor of the House and join in telling us what a wonderful establishment the Army is, while the Gentleman in office is congratulated on the way in which he has presented his statement. But I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) would have been saved from one thing. I must say I heard with great amazement that part of his speech where he dealt with the way in which the Estimates were presented to the House and informed the smiling Secretary of State that the accounts before us were as near perfection as they could possibly be. He said that he was able to get all the information he wanted out of these accounts Speaking from an experience of two or three years on the Public Accounts Committee I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able: to find anything in these accounts. I should be delighted if I might have an hour with him in order that I might learn more about the Army accounts than I have been able to gather from the Estimates presented to us. There are several points which I desire to put to the Secretary of State for War and also to the ex-Secretary of State for War who has told us that he is able to explain this mystery. They are evidently combined in order to prevent the House knowing what is the financial position of the Army. I must remind the Committee that, just a year ago, I followed my leader at the War Office in criticising the very system of accounts which to-day he has blessed. I was criticising the Government for the weak way in which they had given up the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee. My right hon. Friend was Secretary a State for War at a time when the present Secretary of State for War girded at him because he was not standing by the new system of accounts. The present Secretary of State for War has been converted to the old system of accounts, and in doing so he was supported by a very enlightened monarch Charles II. Now, to-day, I find that my right hon. Friend hits himself become converted to the system of accounts which we had in the reign of Charles II.
I should like to ask whether any of the hon. Members opposite on the back
benches can get any definite information on special matters connected with the administration of the Army from the accounts as they are presented to-day. Let us take a number of a different item. I wonder how many hon. Members realise what the Army has under its control Do they realise that the Army runs a large number of schools, that the Army has—or had a year or two ago—a factory employing about 800 people? Do they realise that the Army has bakeries and large electrical generating stations, and that in one place the Army supplies a large part of the town with electricity? I recommend hon. Members to look at these accounts. They can, at any rate, see the headings of a number of these things, but I do not think they will find any accurate information as to the cost of these various items. I have here the Army Accounts for the year 1924–25, which were made up on the system adopted at the close of the War, when the costing system was introduced into the Army accounts. The present Secretary of State for War takes credit for having made great economies" and with having saved £200,000 or £300,000 in getting rid of the accountants who initiated that system. Any business firm could effect economies on those lines. They could simply sack the whole of the staff who keep their accounts. But I do not believe that the costing system need have cost anything like £200,000 or £300,000, if the matter had been gone more fully into, and if, instead of having the old system running side by side with the new one, more attention had been paid to the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee. The distinguished Chairman of that Committee had had great experience in the Army and in the City—quite a unique experience—and he recommended the system of costing accounts. It was only a subsequent Committee that persuaded the War Office to go back on the old lines. I suggest that hon. Members should take the list of the schools and institutions which are run by the War Office, and compare the figures under the costing system and then look at the figures given to them today. I take a school like the School of Equitation, and I find that that now costs £28,000. That is put down as the cost to-day, but a year of two ago the cost was £61,000. The School of Artillery
costs to-day £58,000, but the cost a year or two ago was £237,000. When hon. Members examine matters more fully, they find that in a school like the School of Artillery there is not only the cost of instructors, but also the cost of the material used, and that might amount to something like £100,000. If a new Member comes into the House and looks at the accounts as they are to-day, he finds that the school is only costing £58,000. He is unaware that, if he wants to know what the school costs, he has to make an allowance for the material used.
I ask hon. Members to look at other figures on the same basis. The School of Military Engineering costs £64,000. In these accounts two years ago, the cost was £115,000. Hon. Members will find also other large items that under the present system do not come in but which would have been brought in under the costing system. Taking the whole range of schools and educational establishments and considering how the accounts relating to them are presented to the Committee, I put it to hon. Members that they have no means of knowing whether these establishments are being run in an economical manner, or in an extravagant manner. I might go on and take some of the other items that appear, such as the electricity supply stations, about which no definite information is given. Full particulars ought to have been presented to this House. We were promised by the right hon. Gentleman that the figures should be given with regard to a number of these special grants. It is plain to many of us who were members of the Public Accounts Committee that we could have under the costing system far more information than we have had under the old system of accounts.
The most important question of all is the question of stores. I know the answer that is going to be given when I mention the question of stores. I know that the Secretary of State for War will tell me that he has appointed a Sub-Committee which is considering the question of stores to-day. But the question of stores is the keystone, to a certain extent, of the whole position of accounts. In the first place, as was pointed out to the Committee last year, the House does not even know how much it is spending. The Estimates this year show that it
was estimated to be saving £1,000,000, but no information is given as to the enormous amount of stores which the Army has. If the Army takes £2,000,000 of stores out of its reserves, instead of there being a saving of £1,000,000, it means that the Army has spent £1,000,000 more. Figures were given last year to show how the actual total expenditure of the Army really is quite different from what it appears here, and although you may have theoretically a saving, yet, if the Army has used up a large number of stores—and the speech of the Minister indicated that they were using up these stores—the House does not know whether there is any saving or not. The Minister has given us no information. The figures talked about a year ago was £100,000,000. Now we are told that a sum of £20,000,000 was reduced by about £5,000,000. But whatever the question may be, the stores are valued at millions of pounds. I suppose that even the Minister would not deny that probably to-day there are something like £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 worth of stores. If there are not, we should like to know where a lot of them have gone, because the impression given to us was that it was far larger a short time ago.
The Army tell us they cannot value the stores, but when I asked the experts in the Navy when the question came before the Public Accounts Committee, they told me that in the Navy they could value the stores, and I am left wondering why a, thing can be done in the Navy that cannot be done in the Army. What we really want to hear from the Minister is whether he can give us any information about the amount of stores, whether it is expected that the Committee which is sitting is likely soon to report on the question, and whether he can give us any hope that in future years, at any rate, side by side with these Estimates, even if they are to be left in this unsatisfactory condition until a Labour Government comes in and puts the whole system on a more business-like footing, we may know exactly the value of the stores in hand at the beginning of the year, and at the end of the year exactly the value of the stores again, so that we may know how much the Army have taken out of their stores. We shall then be able to find out whether or not the Minister is really making an economy. One of the bouquets which my right hon. Friend
threw across earlier to-day was to the effect that there were never any Supplementary Estimates for the Army, but the Minister takes his own Supplementary Estimates obviously by working the stores. It is quite likely that my right hon. Friend would not want to point that out, because you never know when you may want to do it yourself when you get back again into office. I wish to express my profound disappointment at the way in which the accounts are presented to us. I regretted last year that the change was made, and I hope, at any rate, that the Minister will give us some satisfactory account with regard to the stores.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: Some speakers spoke earlier about the excessive reductions which have been carried out in the Army. I quite appreciate that this is no time for large forces being kept up, but our Imperial responsibilities are enormous, and security must be assured. I think a very good example was in the organisation of the Shanghai Defence Force, and to mobilise this small force it was necessary to call up the Reserves, which points to a reduction in units beyond the point to which such reduction should safely be carried. There is another point on which economy should not run riot, and that is in regard to facilities for the Staff College, which ought to be considerably increased, and this is particularly necessary in a small army where rapid expansion may be essential. I believe that in a recent examination there were 500 candidates for 50 vacancies, so that if increased facilities could be afforded, the expenditure would be more than justified and would produce great efficiency. I hope accordingly that these two points may have the attention of the Secretary of State.
I do not want to go into too close a discussion of the Territorial Army, but having been a commanding officer in the Territorials, besides a Regular officer, I can perhaps look at the question with some detachment, and I sympathise with the remarks of most of the speakers, and fully appreciate the effect on the Territorial Army. I think it is an open question as to how far it will affect recruiting or otherwise, because though in many cases men may join for the bounty only, I am glad to think
that a very large number will join without considering it. But the serious point that has been raised in this connection is that it is really a reward for efficiency, so that I do hope the Secretary of State will remember that a portion—10s.—is given for musketry. Commanding officers know what difficulty there is sometimes to get men to the ranges, and I feel sure that a sum like this is much appreciated. In fact, it is almost a necessity, and if my right hon. Friend could see his way to do something in the way of efficiency pay in addition, I think the Territorial Army would bear the loss of the bounty in the spirit which animates that Force. One or two speakers said the question might have been referred to commanding officers, but such action would create an impossible position, as a subject would never finish if every question of this nature had to be referred to commanding officers.
1 do wish to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) in regard to Territorial Associations, because I think without any disregard of their value and duties a good deal might be done to reduce expenditure in this direction. It is not easy perhaps in all cases, as some of the city associations have large sums, but in the sparse country districts, particularly where units come under more than one association, I think very much more would be got out of the units by treating them on a capitation basis. It would increase the incentive of units in their own organisation and stimulate local effort and keenness in the counties or towns from which they are raised by furthering local responsibility instead of putting it up to Associations. After all though, as he said, they are absolutely necessary on mobilisation, I think the Association would always be ready and available to assume that responsibility in case of emergency We are very gratified to note increase in mechanisation, also that progress has not been allowed to supersede the horse or other animal transport, and are all very grateful to the Secretary of State for not having carried this too far. I think we must all realise that the upkeep of these mechanised units is going to be much more costly than the mere mechanisation in the first instance.
This leads me, finally, to deal with one or two other savings which have been put forward as difficult to effect unless we can have some co-ordination in a Ministry of Defence or otherwise, and this was particularly emphasised by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think everyone recognises that the Chief of Staff's Committee has proved an invaluable preliminary, but the Chief of Staff of any particular arm must necessarily be biased in favour of his own arm. Reference has been made by the advocates of a Defence Ministry that the Chiefs of Staff should be able to criticise the expenditure proposed by other arms, but this is impossible, and he can only be properly concerned in the expenditure recommended for his own arm. Consequently the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staff can only be considered and given effect to by a Minister of Defence, in view of the bias referred to. Although I think the framework is all right, it must eventually lead up to the organisation of a great Imperial Staff and which personally, have great hope may come from the Imperial College just opened. This will enable an Imperial trend of thought to be produced which can work under a Minister of Defence and which will leave the present Ministers of each of the arms responsible for the administration and organisation of those arms. I think that can be perfectly easily arrived at, and in view of these alterations probably a. Commander-in-Chief could suitably be substituted for the War Council in charge of the particular arms.
This does not make a very drastic change, and I think the Minister of Defence will easily justify the extra expenditure in his appointment by the efficiency, which is bound to result, in Empire knowledge and organisation, and also in arriving at the correct proportion of armaments and the expenditure necessary upon them. I think this proposal would meet the views which have been expressed in favour of having the Estimates co-ordinated and put on some basis which would do away with the present system of each arm fighting for its own interests against those of other arms.

Mr. SNELL: After listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) I gather that the
business of an ordinary Member of this House is to sit in a state of faith and amazement while experts quarrel about figures which they do not understand; but when these Votes are before the House there are other issues at stake than mere complications of accounts. Not only are the Government the biggest spending force in the nation, but they are also the largest employers in the nation, and when these accounts are before the Committee private Members have one of their few opportunities of bringing forward some of the grievances of the men who are in the service of the Government. On this occasion I desire once more to raise the question of the moral responsibility of the Government for the lack of provision for their old servants. This matter has been before the Committee, or the House, on several occasions, and in spite of every effort which has been made by the men themselves and those who represent them, no step forward has resulted. I hope I have not acquired any reputation here for wild words or reckless statements, but I say, with all earnestness, that moderation seems to be made an excuse for ignoring these complaints. Year after year we bring before the Committee a matter which we regard as affecting the national honour, but we get no forwarder in our work.
The main complaint which I desire to bring before the Committee is that the ordnance factory workers alone among the Government workers are deprived of pension rights. The Admiralty workers have them, and there ought to be some real reason why what is given to one section of Government workers is denied to the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury pointed out that the Admiralty, can give an account of stores, whereas the War Office cannot. The Admiralty can also arrange a pension scheme for their workers, whilst the War Office seem incapable or unwilling to do so. What sin have these workers before the lathe and the furnace in Woolwich Arsenal, Enfield and other places committed that they should be deprived of privileges which other Government workers enjoy, and have enjoyed for a very long time. Prior to 4th June, 1870, the ordnance factory workers enjoyed pension rights. On that date they were abolished by a Treasury minute, and no reason has ever been assigned why those
privileges were withdrawn. Naturally the men never accepted this discrimination against them, which was the result of that minute. The first phase of their complaint was an agitation to restore the old conditions, deputations wore out their boots going to the War Office, and ever since 1870 this demand has been going on. One Government after another promised something and never kept its word; there was always some reason for putting the matter off. The men were received and dismissed. Decade after decade followed, and nothing was done.
One Government said the nation could not afford it, although at that time the country was positively choking with wealth. Another Government said that a non-contributory scheme of pensions was wrong. When the first demand was exhausted the workmen accepted the principle of a contributory scheme and appointed a Committee to work out the method by which it should be achieved. Various schemes were formulated which the Government would neither accept nor reject, but they always promised that something should be done. With them it was always
jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day.
When the Labour Government came in, the agitation had got so far that the main principle was accepted by the War Office, provided that the Treasury would agree. That was the real trouble. You might as well ask the east wind to respect old age as to ask the Treasury to help their old servants. Consequently the proposal was rejected as it was expected it would be. We feel that if money had been wanted to enable us to invade other people's territory, or if the names of the workmen at Woolwich and Enfield had been something like Koltchak or Denikin instead or Smith or Brown their claims would have been recognised. These men are willing to pay sums to a contributory scheme equal to those paid by other servants of the State who have pension rights. They are willing to forego their gratuities, and the idea is to formulate a scheme on a 5 per cent basis, a man to be established for pension after 10 years of continuous service. The exact method of what is equitable must be left to experts, but whatever is counted equitable the men will pay. I understand that the Government's new
excuse is that since the Contributory Pensions Act was passed and the Old Age Pension age was reduced to 65 there is now no need for pensioning off old workers because at 65 they will be rewarded as a return for 30, 40 or even 50 years' service by the munificent pension of 10s. a week.
That leads me to ask another question. If the ordnance factory workers are to be deprived of a pension because the Old Age Pension Act gives them 10s. a week, are the other workers to have their pensions withdrawn in order to restore them to equity? If not, the grievance of the workers in the ordnance factories still remains. These old age pensions are really pensions awarded to men because they have reached a certain age, at which they are no longer able to take care of themselves, but the pensions for which we are asking are to be regarded as deferred pay, or an insurance scheme, to which the workers contribute. There is this further problem. If men are discharged from the Government service at 60 years of age, as they are, what are they to do until they reach the age of 65, when this munificent 10s. per week will be given to them? If they are too young to draw the old age pension at GO, then they are young enough to work for further years until they are able to qualify for the old age pension. If it be said that they are offered a gratuity based upon so many years of service, it may be answered that that gratuity is only enough to keep them for a few months, and would very soon be wrung from them by the profiteer.
Not very long ago, the Prime Minister told us a moving story about a firm that he knew, where old gentlemen past work were kept on, sitting on wheelbarrows and so on, because the firm could not find it in their heart to turn these old servants away, to turn them on to the streets or into the workhouse. The Prime Minister is now the employer of a great many men in that position. Since the Armistice, over 2,000 old gentlemen, having been in the Government's service for 30 or 40 years, have been turned off and become chargeable upon their friends or upon the public funds. They are existing—starving—and just waiting in hardship and sorrow until the curtain falls upon their lives. Without any desire to exaggerate, I think any decent
private firm would be ashamed to see its old workers discharged in that manner. If this contributory pensions scheme could be arranged, it would not be operative in its full sense for 15 years, and by that time I, at any rate, have, faith in our nation being in a sufficiently prosperous state to meet whatever demand might be made upon it. Meanwhile, however, there are these old gentlemen for whom no provision has been made, and who have only the workhouse before them. I know of case after case where men have worked for 30 and 40, and sometimes 50 years for the Government, and have given the Government good service.
It is no use making sentimental appeals to this House, but, if it were, I would be inclined to remind hon. Members of what the Psalmist said, in a Book which is much honoured, but little read:
Cast me not off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength faileth.
That is the position with these workmen for whom I speak. All that I ask of the Government to-night is that they should not close the door, but that, if they are not able to meet this demand at the present time, they should leave the door open for future negotiation to take place, whereby we can arrange such a scheme as will be equitable, as will allow the men to pay towards their superannuation allowance, and take from the Government this stigma of neglect of its old people. A few years ago, the negotiations collapsed, during the period when Mr. Haldane was Secretary of State for War. Lord Kitchener promised the men these pensions if they would only wait until the War was over. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1920, urged them to wait still another 12 months; Colonel Jackson, when he was at the War Office, begged them to wait until the minimum establishment had been reached; and so it has gone on year after year, until now we find ourselves back at the point from which we started. I hope I have not placed too much emphasis on this matter, but it is of very real moment to men who are employed by the Government, and who have only poverty to look forward to; and it is, if I may say so, a most serious matter for the nation itself if it continues to neglect its moral
responsibility to trusted and loyal workers.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think the Labour party must be grateful to the last speaker for pouring oil on troubled waters. On this side of the Committee certainly we have enjoyed the quarrel between the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the late Secretary for War. The hon. Member for Finsbury has the idea that the Labour party is going to put the Army on a business footing and proceeded to quarrel with his party's late Minister of War to show how it should he done. But I would remind him that the late Secretary for War did use the words,
if armies must exist…he would congratulate the Secretary of State.
an evident attempt to provide for the pacifist or left wing part of his party. Those of us who have the interest of the country at heart make us doubt whether the Army will ever be put on a business footing by the Labour party.
I should like to ask if we are entitled to discuss air defence on this Vote, because, while the Air Force is responsible for air squadrons, the Army is responsible for anti-aircraft defence, including anti-aircraft guns and searchlights. I wish to draw the attention of the House and the country at large to the great difficulty in any discussion of air defence in this House. To take an instance, supposing an invading air squadron comes across the North Sea. It is then engaged by the Navy. If it comes up the Humber and wanders for a few minutes across the land it comes under the Army. While they are over the Humber they are looked after by the Navy, and in both these operations they are apparently engaged by air squadrons under the Air Force. I think there can be no co-ordination until we get the whole air defence of the country under one Ministry. I should like to know also why it is that we have doubled our antiaircraft guns. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the steps he has taken, but is it for the sake of the air defence of the country from the Air Force point of view or the defence of the mobile army from the Army point of view, because there is a great deal of difference. If it is for the sake of the air defence of the country, where are you going to station the anti-aircraft guns?
At present, as far as I know, both in the Territorial Army and the Regular Army, the whole of the anti-aircraft defence is stationed in London and near it. How long would it take guns to reach the Midlands, or would they ever be spared from London to defend the Midlands, and if not what are the antiaircraft defences of the Midlands with the exception of air squadrons? Does the right hon. Gentleman think air squadrons are sufficient to defend the Midlands? I think they are not.
I should also like a few words with the right hon. Gentleman as to how they are getting on with research in antiaircraft defence. Have they got to the limit of gun power, and will there have to be other forms of scientific invention? I should also like to ask him is he satisfied that he has got an artillery reserve in the anti-aircraft artillery personnels by retaining the artillery men of the anti-aircraft in the Army. I think on the outbreak of War the whole of the anti-aircraft defence, including artillery, will have to be handed over to the Air Ministry, so why not do it now? A change on the outbreak of war is a very grave state of affairs. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any representations from the manufacturers in the Midlands as to their defenceless state. We hope that there is no Air Force that is an immediate danger to us on the Continent of Europe, but we have to remember that the speed and range of aircraft is increasing every day and that we have potential enemies not very far from the Continent of Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to improve the anti-aircraft defences of this country the best thing he can do is to increase the Territorial Force. At the present time the whole of his anti-aircraft Territorial artillery are situated in London. He has no. Territorial artillery in the Midlands or the North of England. I should like to know whether he is confident that the number of men which he proposes to recruit for anti-aircraft artillery will make it efficient, as far as their training is concerned. I understand that the mechanical tractor part of our anti-aircraft force is out of date and old-fashioned compared with other countries. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about this.
I congratulate him on increasing the anti-aircraft force.

Mr. VIANT: I desire to raise a matter in connection with the employés in the War Department, more especially in the Aldershot Command. I understand that it is quite a common thing for the operatives in the building industry to be employed by the War Department, and I am given to understand that for the last two years there have been matters under discussion concerning the wages paid to the building trade operatives in the Aldershot Command. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that for the building industry in this country there is what is known as the National Wages and Conditions Council. It is the function of that Council to determine the wages and hours of labour for the industry. For that purpose, the country is split up into regions or areas. The Aldershot Command comes into one of those regions and the National Council, the responsible authority, composed of workmen and employers, have from time to time met in conference to decide the wages and hours. During the last two years the War Department in the Aldershot Command have, refused to recognise the rate of wages and hours of labour set up by the National Council. Now this House, for a number of years past, has endorsed the Fair Wages Clause, and we invariably endeavour to see, as employers, that those conditions are observed. I should like to hear to-night that the Minister in charge of this Department, if he is not already conversant with the facts I am bringing to his notice, will be prepared to investigate the matter and will give us a little more information as to the reason why these conditions are not enforced—perhaps on the Report stage.
Almost every Member in this House would subscribe to the desire for peace in industry and, if we are to have peace in industry, the Government ought to set a good example. The trade unions concerned have so far refrained from withdrawing any labour from the War Department in the Aldershot Command. They have shown a considerable amount of restraint, and I hope the Department will show its appreciation of that restraint by being prepared to recognise the trade union conditions as laid down by the National Council. The argument that
has so far been put forward is that certain employers in the area are not at the moment paying those rates of wages. The employers who are not paying the rates of wages or recognising the conditions of labour are employers who are not federated and are not parties to the National Federation of Building Trade Employers. They stand on the same basis as a man who is not a member of a trade union, and they are in a position to make their own conditions. The Government, however, has generally been prepared to recognise the associations or the committees set up for the purpose of fixing wages and hours, and I hope that the Minister in charge of the Department will make investigations and give the Committee the assurance that trade union conditions are to be recognised in the future.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I would like to call the attention of the Committee for a moment to a subject which is of very great importance outside this House and which will also I hope receive the sympathy of all parties. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that men are discharged from the Army for certain injuries or diseases, and that it depends upon whether these injuries or diseases are held to be attributable to conditions of service, whether a man will get a pension. A man, for instance, may serve in the Army a certain number of years and be discharged for a certain disease which is held not to be attributable, and that man gets no pension. In certain cases of injury or disease there probably is not much difficulty in deciding as to the attributability, but there are certain diseases which make this principle difficult to apply and the principal one is consumption. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the state of affairs in the Army in connection with men discharged as suffering from consumption. The House should bear in mind that these men who enter the Army are men who undergo a very strict medical examination, who are A.1 men, men of fine physique, and who, having got into the Army, live a healthy life under the best conditions, with good food, plenty of exercise and the very best medical attention. On the slightest sign of any illness or disease they are at once looked after and probably there is no body of men in the country who have a
better or a healthier life than the men in our services. Yet there is one difficulty. A man having undergone a certain number of years of service may develop sickness; he may become consumptive. He is examined by his medical officer and discharged from the Army, and the case is referred to Chelsea to say whether it can be held to be "attributable" or not. And this is where the great difficulty comes in. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have absolute faith in the bona fides of the Board at Chelsea.
I am convinced that they do all in their power to view the case from a sympathetic standpoint, but the difficulty is this: We are all breathing the germ of consumption every day, and it is a well-established fact that the large majority of people in this country suffer from consumption at some time or other during their life, and get cured, that is the large majority. It is impossible for any man to say how or when a consumptive germ may have obtained entrance into the human system, and the medical board at Chelsea are in this awkward position. They have this man, whose medical history is before them, and they have to decide to the best of their ability whether this disease is attributable to the conditions of service. In the case of consumption it is practically an impossibility. No doctor can prove how or when that germ entered the system. The best they can do is to form an opinion, and whether it is possible or probable that the conditions of service may or may not have something to do with it. This is a difficult position for the medical board. The human factor comes into the case very definitely, and it is one of the most difficult things to estimate. A doctor on a board one morning may be in good health and charitably inclined. He may give the man the benefit of the doubt. Another day he may be much more serious or suspicious, and may turn down a case which at another time he would have considered "attributable." And so we have the illogical position that, although a man may develop consumption during his period of service and in the service, yet it is held to be not due to the conditions of service. That is an absolutely untenable and illogical position.
11.0 p.m.
I understand that certain diseases are held as justifiable causes. For instance,
if a man has had malaria or dysentery, or a bad cold through exposure, or pneumonia, and he develops consumption, it is possible that the Board would hold it to be "attributable,' and yet you will find that a man who has had malaria or dysentery or cold or pneumonia and working under the same conditions will not develop consumption. Therefore it may not be due to the conditions of service; there is some other factor in the man himself. If the War Office were absolutely logical they could take up the position and say that no case is due to the conditions of service. If they took that position we could not say a word against it. They could take up the position and say that all cases were attributable, but the difficulty is that in some cases they say it is and in others that it is not. It naturally causes a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country. The man feels that he has not been treated fairly or justly by the War Office, and his relatives feel the same. It is a matter of common knowledge that hon. Members are constantly getting letters of such cases. I would like to mention one or two cases. I have here the case of a man who in a letter mentions that he was suffering from tuberculosis after serving continuously for 17 years and three months. He was wounded and gassed in France, but at Chelsea his case was turned down as "non-attributable." He has a wife and three children to support and is receiving 12s. 3d. pension a week. I have half-a-dozen cases like that. This man had spent the greater part of his life in the service. He had been wounded and gassed, and he developed consumption, and yet the consumption was held to be non-attributable to Army service. On the surface that seems to be absolutely wrong. If any case should be "attributable," I should say that that would be a, likely case. But Chelsea turned it down, and, of course, appeal is useless, because in the first place the Board judges from a man's medical history sheets—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gather from the hon. Member that he is dealing now with war pensions. That subject would not be in order on this Vote.

Dr. DAVIES: I am not dealing with war pensions. I am dealing with the case of men who served in the Army and were
discharged for disease without any pension. The case I happened to quote was that of a man who had done 17 years in the Army and had served during the War, but I am not dealing with war pensions at all, because I recognise that that subject tames under the Ministry of Pensions Vote. I am dealing with pensions granted by the War Office through the Chelsea Commissioners. Facts such as I have stated mean that we have a body of men in this country who are dissatisfied. We have a certain number of Members in this House who also are uneasy. I ask the Secretary of State for War to give us some definite idea as to the position of the War Office on this matter. As far as I can see there are only three possible remedies. The first is for the War Office to take a stand definitely, and to say "It is impossible to prove in any of these cases that the consumption is attributable to the conditions of service, and therefore we will wipe it out altogether." That would be a very harsh decision but a perfectly logical one. The second remedy appears to be for the War Office to schedule a certain number of conditions or diseases which could be held to be predisposing causes for consumption, and if a case of consumption developed after any of these it would be held to be "attributable" without any further trouble.
The third and last suggestion, and one which I have thought of for some time and favour most, is a system of insurance, under which all men in the Service would be compulsorily insured against the possibility of contracting consumption. If a man at any time developed the disease it would not then be necessary to ask how, when or where he contracted it. It would only he necessary to say to him: "You have consumption; you are discharged; you are entitled to a pension as long as you live or until you are cured." That would be the easiest, beat and quickest solution of the difficulty. This matter is of great importance and is causing a great deal of uneasiness in the country and while the War Office and their medical advisers are, I am sure extremely sympathetic, I should be glad if there was solve possibility of turning their sympathy to practical advantage.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish to add but a few sentences to what has been so eloquently said by the last speaker.
What is required is an appeal tribunal before which these men could appear. Only one-third of the candidates who present themselves for the Army are accepted, and they are only accepted after a rigorous test and when they have satisfied the examiners that they are, in every respect, fit. If, owing to the cramped conditions in which they are compelled to live or the dampness to which they are subject, they are invalided out with a disability they have no redress. Not only are their careers in the Army broken, but ill-health prevents them from seeking any other career and they are left derelict. I cannot see how the Secretary of State in common humanity can resist this demand for an appeal tribunal. It is a simple procedure. The tribunal can only give one of two decisions, and on what grounds the War Office can refuse to give a last chance to a man who has been broken in the service of the State I fail to understand. As the representative of a Service constituency many of these cases are brought to my notice. I do not propose to trouble the Secretary of State with them at this late hour, but I am sure he knows the sorrow which has been caused by the lack of a proper appeal tribunal. At the present moment men are judged entirely by the War Office doctors. They are not allowed to argue their ease and are not allowed representation at the hearing of their case. This state of things should be remedied.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I wish to congratulate and thank the Secretary of State for War in reference to the action which has been taken since the discussion on this Vote last year concerning the Royal Army Medical Corps. On that occasion the hon. and. gallant Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) pointed out the extraordinarily dangerous position in which the fighting services were placed owing to the insufficiency of the Royal Army Medical Corps. A Committee was sitting at that time inquiring into the medical services, and it is only since that time that the Committee's report has taken effect. Certain improvements were made in the pay of the service, and it was hoped that this would lead to better recruiting of the Army Medical Service so as to meet the great deficiency which existed. Before the War the establishment of the Army Medical Corps
in officers was something like 1,000. Since the War it went down to 900, and there were under 800 officers on the strength last year. Now the numbers have been increased, but out of 45 vacancies per annum there are only ten being replaced each year. This year 15 came forward and were accepted towards filling 25 vacancies. We are in the position of being behind hand, and the result is that the Secretary of State for War has to appeal for short-service officers. He is now taking officers on short service, for a few years, at the end of which time they are being bribed by gratuities to return to civil life. They will be serving with the colours for only five years, and by the time they have become useful officers they will be returning to civil life. We are carrying on with an elderly service, which is always increasing in seniority, and that makes for great dissatisfaction among the officers serving.
This is one of the most serious points, to my mind, in the Army position to-day. It has been recurring year after year, and at any time we may be faced by the possibility of a terrible scandal that would go to the root of popular confidence in the Army if there were a serious outbreak of war. We are to be greviously disappointed, it would seem on the surface, by the very poor response received so far to the appeal of the Secretary of State for War; but I am sufficiently optimistic to hope that we need not be disappointed. It is too early yet to judge the result of the new terms which have been granted; but there is one thing perfectly certain: you will not get a sudden turn of the tide and see young men going to the medical services of the fighting services unless the fighting services take direct and vigorous methods to attract them. It can be clone if the campaign is driven home, and I hope that the best recruiting officers—those officers whom we have in the service and who recognise the terms and improvements that have been granted—may he sent into their own hospitals and medical schools to try to attract young recruits. In that case, the tide may be turned, hut it will take vigorous action.
In as much as there has been a proposed reduction in the Territorial medical service at the expense of the
casualty clearing stations, I think the position is serious. If the Territorial Army is called out, we will have the same position as we had in the last War in casualty clearing stations. They will have to be improvised suddenly by people who do not know the work. The first shock of battle means a vast number of men wounded and hurled down upon clearing stations which do not know their work. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for War cannot make, arrangements, while he is cutting down the organisation, by which the trained personnel will still continue to be trained, so that they may be qualified for the clearing stations in the event of the outbreak of war.

Mr. KELLY: I want to stress the point with regard to the building trade at Aldershot. I cannot understand the answer which was given by the War Office to the Building Trade Council, in which they said that, because a particular rate is not fully operative in the district, they are not prepared to pay a reasonable wage to those employed in the building trade. So far as those of us who are members of that particular Whitley Council are concerned, we have furnished the War Department with the figures of those who are receiving the rate. We realise that there are certain people employed in Aldershot who are not in receipt of the rate, but why the Government should follow the lead of the sweating employer and shelter them-selves behind him is difficult to understand.
We are told, in regard to the question of stores, that the War Department cannot furnish us with a return showing the value of the stores. That rather surprises me, because my members who happen to be engaged in the service of the War Office in the Stores Department have to take stock at certain intervals, and if there is an article missing, they arc hauled over the coals. In one case that I can quote the man had a money penalty imposed on him for a particular article that was missing when the stock was taken. If they have that stock taken and that return is furnished to them, why cannot they tell us in this House the value of the stores in their possession? Reference was made to-night to the absence of pensions to those employed in the industrial department of the War
Office, and I think it is time they had pensions, but I cannot agree with the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), who suggested that there should be contributions paid by the workpeople. I do not know how they are going to find these contributions out of the 49s. per week wage which is paid at Woolwich at the present time. I hope, however, that the pensions are going to be agreed to.
There is one other point, and that is the action of the Secretary of State in deciding that when a deputation comes to him from a clerical association he is not prepared to receive certain people. I understand that because a somewhat strong statement was made by the secretary of one of the clerical associations in the Civil Service, the Secretary of State refuses to receive that particular individual.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. KELLY: Probably the hon. Members who cheer are not aware of the circumstances. At any rate, it shows the anti-trade union bias of some of the hon. Members opposite, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is time for him to be quite big enough to get over even strong statements made by people in the Civil Service, and not to take upon his shoulders the deciding as to who shall or shall not form part of any deputation that waits upon him. I hope lie will look into that question, and even if he, did feel sore—I know nothing of the circumstances, and there may be plenty of ground for grievance so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, but surely a Minister of State should be big enough to get over that. I put these points in the hope that we shall have a reply upon them, and I hope too that, when they are talking of peace in industry, the War Department will try and help those of us who have been doing our best in that direction, and that when we are asking for arbitration, the War Department will not keep us waiting for three years for arbitration, as they have done in the case of our stores people.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A great many points have been raised in the course of this Debate, and if T only reply to them briefly, it is not because I do not recognise that many of them are important and deserving of fuller
consideration, but because I do not wish to keep hon. Members longer than is necessary. Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) for the speech with which he opened the Debate. I am very sorry if I got him into trouble with his supporters at the back with regard to the accounts. They are probably both right, because undoubtedly the Estimates, as they are presented to the House to-day, are very much more informing to the average man, but to the accountant who specialises in accounts it may be that the old form does give something which the ordinary man, like the right hon. Gentleman and myself, cannot find from them.
The right hon. Gentleman was afraid that there was slacking off in our action with regard to vocational training centres. Let me assure him that the abolition of the command centres was not because we want to reduce the opportunity for training—not at all. It was because the training in these centres, or in some of them, at any rate, was not as efficient, and it was turning out men only partially trained, who were not doing credit to themselves or to the training centres generally, and they were giving the training centres a bad name as being theoretically trained when, in fact, they were not practical men at the trades for which they were trained. We are increasing facilities for training at Catterick and Hounslow, and at Aldershot we are opening up another Army training centre on a large scale and which will be as well equipped as Catterick and Hounslow. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) made a very good suggestion, that the, men who are being trained at the vocational training centres should be linked up to line battalions or regiments in Canada. I will pursue that. I hope that something really practical can come of that. We have a large number of battalions in Canada allied to battalions in this country, and if they are willing to help men of the home battalions when they get the other side, I can think of nothing which would create more good feeling and good comradeship in their new surroundings.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) seemed afraid we
were going to destroy the Duke of York's School. That is a myth which has got started and which seems to me extremely difficult to overtake. At present no decision whatever has been taken to increase the buildings on the ground of the Duke of York's School. It is true that there is a community there, the accommodation for which is being reconsidered, but no proposal has been considered at present for increasing the building there, and I can assure the Committee that a very, very good case will have to be made out for any alteration in the present building. This I am certain of, we have no intention of destroying the open space there.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) called attention to the Votes for stabling at Catterick. So enlightened are we that the stabling has been put up in such a form that it can be converted without difficulty to a garage. If mechanical transport does indeed supersede the horse, we shall not have to rebuild; a slight conversion will suffice. At Weedon, where there is a school of equitation, the hon. Member called attention to increased expenditure on stabling. Until the horse gets into the museum, where it was consigned by one hon. Member this afternoon, it is necessary to house it. At present horses are in huts at Weedon and those huts are not watertight. It is not economic, even if it were humane, to put valuable animals into bad stables, and consequently it is essential to have improved stabling there. In Egypt exactly the same thing is happening. The Remount Department are converting war-time huts into more permanent buildings. The same hon. Member wanted further opportunities for rankers. I do not know whether he knew it but we are extending the "Y" cadet arrangement to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. "Y" cadets will go to the Royal Academy in addition to those who are now going to Sandhurst. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Sir Assheton Pownall) thought that the "Y" candidates would be handicapped because they would get in at a later age. He suggested that there should be an ante-date. I am perfectly willing to consider whether that is required, but I do not think we should do it just at the moment. As hon. Members know, a captain can remain a captain till he is 45, and a major
can remain until 50 before being turned out, and it seems to me that these "Y" cadets would start with a considerable advantage. They must be very well equipped or they would not be "Y" cadets at all, and I think there is very little doubt that with the present arrangements for accelerated promotion they are not likely to get left if they continue-to fulfil the promise which their "Y" cadetship has given to us.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and Northern Ayrshire (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) and the hon. Member for Abingdon have called attention to the desire to have a Committee of Imperial Defence Debate before the Army, Air Force, and Naval Estimates are separately discussed. I am not in a position to say more than that, speaking for myself. I should welcome it. I am not quite sure how it could be done; whether it would be possible to put down one of the Votes which cover the Committee of Imperial Defence or the new Imperial Defence College. I am not sure, but it is not for me to do more than say that I myself should welcome it very much. The hon. Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) called attention to the danger of reducing establishments. He urged that we should try to get larger squadrons rather than smaller ones. He pointed out how difficult it was for the officers and men to take an interest in their work if their numbers were so small. I agree that if we could have larger units it would be better from the point of view he was mentioning. But the real anxiety, he went on to say, was as to the future of the Army, and he asked whether I could give an assurance that there would he no more cuts. As regards cavalry I have already said what the present intentions are. If experience shows that the plans we are now putting into operation are right and successful, there will be a continuation of those plans and a gradual conversion; hut subject to that I hope it is true, and so far as I can see it is true, that there is no room for further cuts in the effectives of the Army, and I do not think that any one who joins the Army now need have any fear that his occupation will be destroyed by reason of further cuts.
The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) raised again the question
of a pension for the civil employés at Woolwich. He stated that the Admiralty had such a scheme and compared the War Office with the Admiralty, naturally to the detriment of the War Office. That is not quite accurate, because the Admiralty scheme affects only one-third of its employés, but the scheme put forward by those employed at Woolwich would cost on these Estimates £220,000 a year. I should very much like to see that nobody in the industrial employment of the State should be turned out either at 60 or 65 years of age without some provision being made for them but 5s. a week additional per employé would be the cost to the State. I would like to point out in this connection that on the Army Estimates to-day there is nearly £500,000 a year being paid out of these Votes for the Government share of the National Health and Unemployment Insurance and Old Age Pensions. Therefore I cannot see my way to add to the Non-effective Votes at the expense of the Effective Votes. If £220,000 is taken from these Votes it means affecting some other units of the Army which have already been reduced to bed-rock cost. As a matter of fact, there is less need than there was, because now at 65 these workers will be entitled to pensions under the Old Age Pensions scheme, in addition to the bonus they get for their service of one week's pay for every year of service.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me to remove the ban upon receiving a certain gentleman whose name is Mr. Brown and who represents the Civil Service Clerical Association. What happened was this: I never made any hones about receiving Mr. Brown until I saw in a journal for which he is responsible a statement that the establishment officer at the War Office was a, liar. When Mr. Brown came before me on a deputation I asked him whether that was what he had written and if he took the responsibility for it and he said he did. I then said that he must leave the room and I would not see him. Of course, I could not ask that officer to answer questions in the face of a man who had called him a liar. It is simply a question of the treatment of a civil servant who is entitled to protection by those who employ him, and I shall not receive Mr. Brown until that gentleman withdraws that statement and apologises.
When he has done that, he can come to see me when he likes. We have to receive people sometimes whom we would perhaps prefer not to receive, hut I do not select those who come to see me. I am, however, always polite to them and I shall be polite to Mr. Brown when he has shown the ordinary courtesy which he ought to observe in public life.
The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) raised the question of pensions for those invalided out of the Army on account of consumption. This is about as difficult a medical question as can be raised, and it is really not one, I think, with which this Committee can usefully deal. My hon. Friend said that it would be perfectly logical to refuse pension in all those cases—logical but harsh. The medical profession may not yet be able to diagnose these cases sufficiently thoroughly to be always right, but surely it is better, in those eases which they think are attributable, not to be logical or harsh, but to give a pension, and that is what we do. We may not give it in every case in which we ought to give it, but that is not the fault of the administration; it is due, if I may say so, to the incomplete knowledge which the medical profession have as yet attained as to the causes of consumption. I do not blame them. They are doing, as my hon. Friend says, their very best, and they are doing it honestly; and I am afraid that that is all we can expect from even the medical profession—to do their best and apply their knowledge honestly, saying which cases they think are attributable, when a pension is granted, and which cases they think are not attributable, when a pension is not granted. There is a fourth alternative, which I think is better than all the three that my hon. Friend suggested, and that is the course which we are now following.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) referred to the deficiency in the numbers of our medical officers. We are doing our best to fill up, and the course my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, of going round the medical schools and hospitals, is being followed. The Director-General of Army Medical Services is to my knowledge going to some of these himself, and I believe the proposal as to officers going back to their own schools and hospitals
is being followed. I know that it was discussed more than a year ago, and I think it is being done, but I will make inquiry to see that that course is followed if it is thought better than what is now being done.
The hon. Member for Rochdale and another hon. Member wanted me to consider the position with regard to the building trade at Aldershot, and I will go into that. I cannot deal with it now, as I have had no notice of it, and have no information as to the actual circumstances. The hon. Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) raised the question of stores. I dealt with this question at some length last year, and I was told from the other side of the House—I am not sure it was not from below the Gangway—that our clothing stores were worth £25,000,000. I had had all sorts of vague rumours, hut that was stated as a definite fact. I immediately made inquiries and had them valued, and the value of the clothing stores—I forget the exact figure—was found to be between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and not £25,000,000. Another Figure that has been given from the other side to-day is é100,000,000 as the gross total, and I expect that that will be found to be equally exaggerated, but I am not sure. What is happening is this: I set up a Committee as the result of a, suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee, and that Committee has either reported or is on the point of reporting. I have not seen the Report yet, but I am told by a member that they have got some method of valuation of stores. If they have and it is a reasonable one as regards expense, I shall be only too glad to have it because I agree there is always this criticism, not of the War Office Estimates alone, but of every Department's Estimates, that if there are stores they are not shown in the cash account, and consequently the actual expenditure of cash and stores may in any one year be greater than the cash expenditure shown in the accounts. It is due to the annual system of incomings and outgoings rather than the profit and loss account separated from the capital account, a system which we do not follow in our public accounts.
The hon. Member for Finsbury also complained about the costing system. I went into it at great length last year
and will not do it again now. We have not scrapped it altogether. We are continuing it for the productive operations of the Army. The hon. Member referred to our bread baking and our electricity works. Those are costed at this moment, and we have retained it for exactly those things. He then suggested that the School of Artillery was not properly shown in the accounts because, besides the cash, there was the material expended. That is true. There is material expended, but how would it help the House if you had a a castings account of the School of Artillery? Would it help you to say whether that school was well conducted, whether it was doing what it ought to do, and teaching what it ought to teach or not? Of course, there is material expended, but you could not see from the accounts, even with that in, whether it was economical or extravagant, and indeed I am willing to take that as the test of what has happened, namely, that this sort of school is not costed whereas the productive operations of the Army are costed.
The only other thing I want to deal with is the abolition of the Territorial bounty. It has been suggested that I ought to have consulted the commanding officers of the units. That would be quite impracticable. How could you expect them to desire that the bounty should be cut off? They would not have had an opportunity of judging. They have not the slightest idea of our other expenditure. They have not the means of saying what other economies could be made and of balancing one against the other. I did consult the Council of Territorial Associations. I very much regret that I could not give them more time to consider it. They had 12 days. They considered it by a committee. When the deputation came to me, I offered to go to the meeting of the Council that was going to be held then or thereabouts, as I had done several times before, to explain what the alternatives were. I am sorry there was not more time, but anyone who knows how Estimates are done will understand why. It was not until about the end of January or the first week in February that I knew what my other commitments were, and what reductions in the total I had to make in my Estimates. Until
that moment there was always the fear that rather more might have to he taken off the Territorial Vote, and I was very glad when I was able to abandon the question of reduction of establishments, which would hare given a larger saving on the Vote. I am sorry that there was not more time, but there was not the time available, in the very nature of things, and I hope that the Territorial Associations will realise—

Mr. HANNON: Why was not there more time?.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How could there be more time? I did not know until the beginning of February what cuts had to be made. It is no use going to Territorial Associations and saying: "There may have to be this cut, or there may have to be that cut." That would only upset them for no good purpose. Until you were ready to make a proposal it was no use going to discuss with them the proposal, or any alternative. There have been varied opinions expressed in Committee about the effect of cutting off the bounty. On the one side there has -been a repetition of the opinions I have heard outside. Some seem to think that it is going to be very serious. Some think it will not be so serious. Some are not complaining so much of the bounty being cut off but that it was done so suddenly, and that those who would otherwise have re-engaged with the bounty were not given an opportunity of re-engaging with the bounty. If you are going to cut off the bounty it is better to do it suddenly, and not give notice of it. If you give notice of it, even a week's notice, those who are nearest at hand and hear of it, rush in and get the bounty for four years, while those who are just as efficient and have had just as long service, for some reason or other are not able to go and they do not get the bounty. If it is to be done at all, it is far better, and it is right, that it should be done at once. The complaint is made that a good deal of moral harm has been done.

Mr. HANNON: Hear, hear!

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear!" He is largely contributing to that moral harm, because if this matter is exaggerated it
is going to do harm. If on the other hand it is taken, not as a pleasant measure but as one of the necessary economies, and everybody puts their shoulder to the wheel, it is not likely to do anything like as much harm as it will do if people are encouraged to grumble and exaggerate the difficulties. I can assure the Committee that I am not going to take any risk of permanent harm to the Territorial Army, which is our second line of defence. It is the line from which in the last event, in the event of a great national crisis, additional troops would have to be raised and raised in their own divisions, not as drafts for the Regular Army but as the sole means of increasing the fighting forces of the Crown. The Government have no intention of doing anything which will interfere, obviously and permanently, with recruiting. We shall watch the position and if there is any such fear I shall have no hesitation whatever in coming to the House to press for one of the alternatives which hon. Members have suggested to-day. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has done so much for the Territorial Army, and whose knowledge is so great, has made a suggestion that some form of proficiency pay may be required in order that the men can have an inducement to attend to their musketry sand their drills and so forth. That is a suggestion which I shall bear in mind and, if there is any indication that there is any serious likelihood of a damage to recruiting and that such an alteration as that would undo that harm, then hon. Members may rely that I am not going to stand in the way of the final proficiency of the Territorial Army.

Sir H. CROFT: May we hope that this matter is cot finally disposed of now?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think it is possible to do so. I am certain the Territorial Associations and also the officers of the Territorial Army will give this matter a proper and a fair test. It will not he possible in a week or a month or two months to see what the effect of the abolition of the bounty is going to be. Hon. Members have said to-day that a considerable number of men about to re-engage have not re-engaged because of the abolition of the
bounty. I do not wonder. If there is a sort of atmosphere of suspicion they become affected by it and they will very likely say, "No. I am not going to reengage." Let all that atmosphere of suspicion be cleared up, let there be goodwill in this matter, and let us see what effect, if any, the abolition of the bounty will have. Given that, I am quite certain that the suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend has made will be considered, and whatever may be necessary to preserve the efficiency and the numbers of the Territorial Army will be proposed to this House.

PAY, ETC.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,828,000. lie granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,299,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,605,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1928.

PENSIONS AND OTTER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital, of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £247,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope) adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.